Judicial Impartiality and the Regulation of Judicial Election Campaigns

Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 15, p. 205, 2004

25 Pages Posted: 25 Apr 2007

See all articles by Ofer Raban

Ofer Raban

University of Oregon - School of Law

Abstract

Approximately eighty percent of America's state judges are elected for office. In an effort to prevent the politicization of these judicial elections, many American states, including Minnesota, forbade judicial candidates from announcing their views on "disputed legal or political issues" during their election campaign. In Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (536 U.S. 765, 122 S.Ct. 2528 [2002]) the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Minnesota regulation an unconstitutional abridgement of the Freedom of Speech. Since Minnesota claimed that the regulation was important for the preservation of judicial impartiality, the Court undertook an analysis of that notion. The opinion offered three different definitions of judicial impartiality, and then rejected Minnesota's claim in regard to each. This paper offers a critical analysis of the opinion, showing that the Court's examination of the notion of judicial impartiality was superficial and misguided.

Keywords: constitutional law, jurisprudence

JEL Classification: k1

Suggested Citation

Raban, Ofer, Judicial Impartiality and the Regulation of Judicial Election Campaigns. Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 15, p. 205, 2004, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=982580

Ofer Raban (Contact Author)

University of Oregon - School of Law ( email )

1515 Agate Street
Eugene, OR Oregon 97403
United States

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

Paper statistics

Downloads
84
Abstract Views
902
Rank
535,304
PlumX Metrics