State Regulation of Judicial Campaign: The Constitutionality of Limiting Political Activities and Speech of State Trial Court Candidates

Posted: 29 Mar 2010

Abstract

Since the US Supreme Court decided Republican Party of Minnesota v. White in 2002, there have been serious questions about the constitutionality of Judicial Canons which bar judicial candidates from activity and speech that would clearly be constitutionally protected if engaged in by non-judicial candidates. This paper examines the ways in which some states have responded to White by allowing judicial candidates greater latitude in voicing their political views, while other states, such as Ohio, have moved in the opposite direction. Particular attention is devoted to the constitutionality of Ohioメs 2009 modifications of its Code of Judicial Conduct which further restricted judicial candidatesメ political speech and association. Finally, the paper examines the impact of White on judicial election campaign advertising, speech and disciplinary measures in Ohio to determine whether the added restrictions have reduced partisanship and spending in contested judicial races.

Suggested Citation

Good, Martha H., State Regulation of Judicial Campaign: The Constitutionality of Limiting Political Activities and Speech of State Trial Court Candidates. Western Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting Paper , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1580524

Martha H. Good (Contact Author)

Miami University of Ohio ( email )

Oxford, OH 45056
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
294
PlumX Metrics