Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002)
| Quick facts: | |
|---|---|
| Case: | Republican Party of Minnesota v. White |
| Date: | June 27, 2002 |
| Outcome: | Reversed |
| Ruling: | Republican Party of Minnesota v. White |
| Author: | Antonin Scalia |
| Vote Count: | 5-4 |
| Majority Justices: | O'ConnorΨ, KennedyΨRehnquist, Thomas |
| Minority Justices: | StevensŦ, GinsburgŦSouter, Breyer |
| Court of Origin: | United States District Court for the District of Minnesota |
Ψ-Concurring Opinion Author. Ŧ-Dissenting Opinion Author. | |
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White was a landmark case decided on June 27, 2002, by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that Minnesota's "announce clause" was in violation of the First Amendment.[1]
Case Background
The Minnesota Supreme Court adopted a canon of judicial conduct that prohibited candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues. Gregory Wersal, who was running for Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, felt he was very limited in what he could say to the press and the public. Wersal, with the support of the Republican Party, filed this suit asking for an injunction against enforcing this law on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment.[1]
Key People
- Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
- Petitioner: Republican Party of Minnesota
- Defendant: White
Court Details
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
Decision: The Court determined that the announcement clause did not violate the First Amendment.[1]
Decision: The Court affirmed the lower Court's decision.[1]
Supreme Court – June 27, 2002
Decision: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the decision. In Scalia's opinion, he stated that the "announce clause prohibits a judicial candidate from stating his views on any specific nonfanciful legal question within the province of the court for which he is running, except in the context of discussing past decisions–-and in the latter context as well, if he expresses the view that he is not bound by stare decisis."[2]
The Majority Opinion held that the announce clause both prohibited speech based on content and hindered the ability to speak about candidates' qualifications for office.[1] Furthermore, the opinion stated, respondents must closely examine the constitutionality by "prov[ing] that the clause is (1) narrowly tailored, to serve (2) a compelling state interest."[2] Based on this, the Supreme Court found that this restriction did not, in fact, preserve impartiality.[1]
Reaction
There were numerous negative responses to this decision. Robert Hirshon, former president of the American Bar Association, went as far to say that, "This is a bad decision. It will open a Pandora's Box." Many argued that this would decrease the number of fair judges and turn judges into another set of politicians.[3] Furthermore, some said this precedent could compromise judicial impartiality. There was some concern that groups--like business organizations and trial lawyer groups--could force the opinions of the candidates. Although the candidates still could not make promises or pledges regarding their behavior on the bench, the candidates could feel forced into giving into demands from special interest groups who donated to them as a result of their opinions.[4]
Others took a middle of the road opinion, saying that although this may allow voters to know the opinions of judges, judges would still be restricted to applying precedents. However, this could change the re-election process. With re-election, there would be accountability regarding a judge's consistency. In fact, they continued, there was little information validating these fears, since many partial judges are voted out of office during re-election.[5]
Legacy
Some were concerned with issues such as increased candidates, "decreased electoral support for incumbents," higher campaign costs and less voter participation as a result of the case. However, data gathered and analyzed showed no evidence that any major changes have occurred as a result of this case.[6]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Oyez, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, accessed December 17, 2013
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Case Law, "Republican Party of Minnesota et al. v. White, Chairperson, Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards, et al., accessed December 17, 2013
- ↑ Georgetown Law, "Republican Party of Minnesota v. White: Should Judges Be More Like Politicians?" accessed December 17, 2013
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedbrennan - ↑ Willamette Law, "Republican Party of Minnesota v. White and the announce clause..." accessed December 17, 2013
- ↑ University of Pittsburgh, "White Noise: The Unrealized Effects of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White on Judicial Elections
