| Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 5/2/11 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 5/2/2011, 8:31 AM |
| To: Election Law |
The Court's order list is here.
Bauer
and Siefert
had been held, perhaps until after the Court's argument
in the Carrigan case [Disclosure: I am one of Mr.
Carrigan's lawyers]. Siefert v. Alexander involves a judicial
candidate's personal solicitation of campaign contributions.
Bauer v. Shepard involves, among other things, limits on the
political party activities of judicial candidates. I wrote
last August that "[t]he opinion in Bauer v. Shephard is likely
to be quite influential, though it does not break much new
doctrinal ground. Judge Easterbrook's writing is clear and
strong, and other courts could well decide to follow it. I found
this sentence on page 16 particularly important: 'Allowing
judges to participate in politics would poison the reputation of
the whole judiciary and seriously impair public confidence,
without which the judiciary cannot function. Preserving that
confidence is a compelling interest. No one could contemplate
with equanimity the prospect of a state's chief justice also
being the head of a political party and doling out favors or
patronage, or deciding who runs for legislative office. States
are entitled to ensure not only that judges behave in office
with probity and dignity, but also that their conduct makes it
possible for them to serve impartially.'"
The Supreme Court's decision not to hear these cases has no
precedential value. However, the Court's decision to decline to
hear them, especially given the strong First Amendment
jurisprudence of this Court, will no doubt lead those supporting
special judicial campaign rules in judicial elections a reason
to breathe a sigh of relief.
Mark Brown has
this commentary in the Sun Times.
This
item appears at The
Motley Fool.
See here.