Imagine an election campaign in which the candidates discuss only their r�sum�s, their general outlook, and their administrative abilities. Imagine that the candidates are not permitted to discuss the most pressing issues of the day, not even to respond to voters’ questions about specific topics.
In a country that prides itself on its vigorous protection of the freedom of speech, especially political speech, this scenario should sound foreign — and certainly impossible to reconcile with basic First Amendment values. But it is neither foreign nor imaginary. It is, in fact, the method by which most states choose their judges, requiring them to stand for election yet preventing them from talking openly to the voters.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
