WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday examined state laws that ban judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions in a case that tests the balance between free speech and judicial integrity.
RELATED ARTICLES
http://www.arkansas…">Justices toss ban on beards in prisonhttp://www.arkansas…">Tuesday’s Supreme Court actions
The justices heard arguments Tuesday in an appeal from Lanell Williams-Yulee, a former Florida state judicial candidate who was disciplined by the state bar association after signing a mass-mail fundraising letter. Florida is one of 30 states that bar judicial candidates from making personal solicitations. Almost 40 states have judicial elections in some form.
The Supreme Court's Republican appointees, who have struck down campaign-finance regulations in recent years, aimed skeptical questions at a lawyer defending Florida's ban. Chief Justice John Roberts asked why a judge seeking re-election couldn't request a contribution from a college classmate, at least one who isn't a lawyer.
"Nobody would say there's any real risk of corruption because he's calling up his old friends," Roberts said.
Spending on state judicial elections has soared in recent years, topping $56 million in the 2011-12 election cycle, according to a study by three groups, including Justice at Stake, a Washington organization that works to protect the courts from political pressure.
Lower courts are divided on the constitutionality of solicitation bans. The Florida Supreme Court upheld that state's prohibition, saying it "promotes the state's compelling interests in preserving the integrity of the judiciary and maintaining the public's confidence in an impartial judiciary."
The Florida court said the law places only a limited burden on the speech rights of candidates because the measure lets them raise funds through a separate committee.
Barry Richard, representing the Florida Bar, said the ban was designed to "cut the direct link" between the would-be judge and contributor.
Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether that argument made sense given that Florida lets judicial candidates write thank-you notes to contributors.
"Once you say you can send a thank-you note, what you've just said is not true," Scalia said.
Williams-Yulee contends the law, which bars candidates from asking for money in speeches and mass mailings, does little if anything to promote judicial integrity.
Her attorney, Andrew Pincus, offered the justices a narrow way to resolve the case, saying the court could rule for his client while letting states bar "one-to-one solicitation" by judicial candidates.
Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested Pincus' position didn't go far enough, faulting it for not clearly delineating between protected and unprotected speech.
"If we say, 'Well, the one-on-one letter, that's almost like a personal solicitation, we can ban that,' then what about a letter to five people?" asked Kennedy, who has joined Roberts and Scalia in blocking campaign-finance restrictions. "And then we're off to the races."
Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor came to the defense of the Florida law, saying personal solicitations by judges have a uniquely coercive quality.
Sotomayor said it is "very, very, very rare" that she is turned down after asking a lawyer to serve on a committee or help organize something.
"Isn't it inherent in the lawyer-judge context that people are going to say yes?" she asked.
When a judge writes a letter asking for money, "the answer to that question is yes," Breyer said. "And if it's the campaign manager, perhaps it's no."
The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the speech rights of judicial candidates since 2002, when a divided court said states must let would-be judges express their views on legal and political issues.
The case, which the court will decide by June, is Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 13-1499.
A Section on 01/21/2015