Judicial Campaign Speech Restrictions after White: New York Weighs In

Abstract

In Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 u.S. 765, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694 (2002), the Supreme Court invalidated a Minnesota judicial conduct provision that prohibited judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or polit ical issues. Ever since, states that select at least a segment of their judiciary through pop ular election have been grappling with the reach of White and its application to state-level judicial conduct rules that limit campaign activity in judicial elections. In 2003 the New York Court of Appeals issued two important decisions, In re Raab, 763 N.Y.S.2d 213, 793 N.E.2d 1287, 100 N.Y.2d 305 (2003), and In re Watson, 100 N.Y.2d 290, 794 N.E.2d 1, 763 N.Y.S.2d 219 (2003), that set clear beacons for considering the breadth of White and its potential effect on campaigns in judicial elections. This note will address the specif ic Minnesota and New York rules in question, the courts' interpretation of the rules and application of White, and implications it has for judicial campaign activities and prohibi tions in other states.