An Analysis of the States' Responses to Republican Party of Minnesota v. White

Abstract

We examine the state supreme courts' implementation of the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002), which invalidated a restriction on judicial campaign speech. We find that the lower courts' responses to the decision varied, and place them in the following categories: 1) noncompliance; 2) slow compliance; 3) compliance; 4) expansion; 5) limited expansion; and 6) unresponsive. We then analyze the states' actions in light of their courts' ideology, citizens' ideology, level of interest-group activity, political culture, and system of judicial selection. We find that some states' reactions to White seem to be influenced by institutional norms and political culture and values relating to the proper roles for judicial office-seekers but not by partisan ideology or interest-group pressures. We speculate that these factors are significant because the manner in which White is implemented may affect fundamentally the functioning of the judiciary and the public's perception of it; thus, the state high courts may be more likely to respond to the decision reflecting the state's political values and norms.