The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down as unconstitutional the ethical rule that prohibits judicial candidates from expressing their views on disputed legal or political issues. Although the court stopped short of throwing out all limits on judicial campaign speech, the implication of the court’s decision is clear: judicial candidates are now free to signal how they will rule on any number of issues they might be required to decide if elected.
At first blush, this may seem a positive development. Voters can learn where judicial candidates stand on hot-button issues and can vote based on candidates’ substantive positions rather than on bar associations’ qualification ratings or arbitrary considerations such as the location of the candidate’s name on the ballot.
This content has been archived.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]
