High Court Holds Judicial Candidates May Address Issues.(Brief Article)

On June 27, 2002, the United States Supreme Court struck down Minnesota's "announce clause," which barred candidates seeking election as judges in that state from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues. The case, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, was argued by James Bopp, Jr., general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, who is also general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee.

"This decision ends the charade in which states hold elections for judges, then forbid the judges to speak their minds and the voters from hearing what they have to say," Bopp declared. "It makes no common or constitutional sense to insist that judges must convince voters to elect them, then muzzle judges on the campaign trail. The Constitution doesn't allow Americans to be forced to vote for judicial question marks."

Gregory Wersal, who ran for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court and originally brought the case, told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that the decision was "a great victory for those of us who believe in elections and the power of people to govern themselves."

In addition to support from the Minnesota Republican Party, which joined the suit in 1998, Ralph Nader's Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union sided with Wersal, as did groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White arose after Wersal ran for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1996 and 1998. He was threatened with discipline for criticizing several of that court's decisions, including the court's position on abortion.

Although a complaint against him was dropped because of questions about the constitutionality of the announce clause, his efforts to obtain official clarification from the governing ethical boards yielded no clear guidelines. Wersal filed suit and was joined as a plaintiff by the Minnesota Republican Party and others asserting the First Amendment right to receive the information that Wersal wished to "announce."

Both the district and Eighth Circuit appellate courts upheld the statute as necessary to protect judicial impartiality and the appearance of judicial impartiality.