Court Won't Hear Judicial Elections Case

AP ^ | 1/23/6 | TONI LOCY

[SmithL]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to decide whether states can restrict candidates for judgeships from participating in political party activities and soliciting campaign contributions.

By doing so, the justices let stand a controversial lower court decision that voided rules that Minnesota and 30 other states have adopted to keep elections nonpartisan.

Four years ago, the high court split 5-4 in striking down another provision of Minnesota's judicial election rules that prohibited a candidate from revealing his or her legal or political views. The justices said then that Minnesota's "announce clause" violated the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech.

Last year, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Minnesota's other restrictions on partisan activities and fundraising, saying the rules violated the candidates' First Amendment rights.

[SmithL]

A win for the Bill of Rights.

[Red Badger]

Now the judges cannot hide their political views behind their robes.......

[pierrem15]

"to keep elections nonpartisan. "

WTF is a 'nonpartisan' election?

It's really a 'one-party' election, the party of big government and the nanny state regarding economics, the party of libertinism in personal life.

It's the infantilization of politics by 'adults' who don't trust the 'children' of the electorate.