•  
  •  
 

Document Type

Article

Media Type

Text

Abstract

In the United States Supreme Court decision Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, a five-to-four majority struck down a judicial campaign speech restriction designed to uphold the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary and left remaining restrictions in serious doubt. This comment examines judicial campaign speech restrictions and suggests, in light of White, alternatives for states with elected judiciaries that wish to maintain the impartiality and integrity of their judiciaries. After exploring the tension between a state's compelling interest in maintaining an impartial judiciary and a judicial candidate's First Amendment rights, one possible alternative for dealing with judicial campaign speech that presents itself is the unofficial campaign conduct committee. Through private group action, neither the integrity of the judiciary nor a candidate's right to free speech will be compromised.

First Page

295

Last Page

351

Publication Date

5-1-2004

Department

College of Law

ISSN

0734-1490

Language

eng

Publisher

Northern Illinois University Law Review

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.