Court Won't Hear Judicial Elections Case

[Judi Lynn]

Court Won't Hear Judicial Elections Case
By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer

Monday, January 23, 2006
(01-23) 07:47 PST (AP) --

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to decide whether states can restrict candidates for judgeships from participating in political party activities and soliciting campaign contributions.

By doing so, the justices let stand a controversial lower court decision that voided rules that Minnesota and 30 other states have adopted to keep elections nonpartisan.

Four years ago, the high court split 5-4 in striking down another provision of Minnesota's judicial election rules that prohibited a candidate from revealing his or her legal or political views. The justices said then that Minnesota's "announce clause" violated the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech.
Last year, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Minnesota's other restrictions on partisan activities and fundraising, saying the rules violated the candidates' First Amendment rights.

A twice-failed candidate for judge, Gregory Wersel, and the state's Republican Party had challenged Minnesota's restrictions, arguing that the rules prevent the public from making informed decisions in judicial elections.
(snip/...)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/23/national/w074701S82.DTL

[phoebe]

1. saw this - want to bet that Alito will rule on this in favor of the RNC?

It now seems that not an hour goes by without the Bush team/Republicans resorting to mafia-like behavior..

[Kagemusha]

2. That's what political parties do. All political parties.

I don't want to paint with too broad a brush to take attention off from a specific corruption crime wave with the current national Republican party.

[phoebe]

3. agreed - the timing of such a decision is in question here

n/t

[maddezmom]

4. kick to combine

[DeepModem Mom]

5. LAT: Supreme Court Ruling Could Spur Partisan Judicial Campaigns

Supreme Court Ruling Could Spur Partisan Judicial Campaigns
Justices void restrictions on Minnesota judges' soliciting of money and declaring party ties. Effect of the decision could spread.

By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court took another step Monday toward transforming state elections for judges from nonpartisan, low-key affairs into big-money contests.

The justices let stand a lower court ruling in a Minnesota case that voids rules forbidding judicial candidates from personally soliciting money or from identifying themselves as Republicans or Democrats.

The rules were voided using the rationale that they deprive candidates of free speech. About 30 states with similar provisions could be affected if the ruling spreads beyond the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Monday's decision "could open the floodgates of money into America's courtrooms," said the Washington-based group Justice at Stake. It will "ratchet up special-interest pressure on courts that are supposed to be fair and impartial."

Minnesota sought to preserve the rules against such spending, contending they are "critical to ensuring that the state's judiciary is — and is seen to be — above party politics and the corrupting influences of money."...


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus24jan24,0,7211648.story?coll=la-home-nation

[LizW]

6. Like in Texas and Alabama

Karl Rove made a name for himself running judicial races in those two states. Pretty much destroyed the credibility of the Alabama Supreme Court in the process. Supreme Court races are some of the nastiest races we have because there's so much money riding on them.

But that's what the Republicans want. Justice -- for the highest bidder.