| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Minnesota has a law that says that judges running for election can't announce their views on disputed legal or political issues. |
| Posture: | Court of appeals says that strict scrutiny is the right test, but it's not clear how they found. |
| Issue: | Is this restriction constitutional? |
| Holding: | No. |
| Rule: | Strict scrutiny demands that a measure be:
|
| Reasoning: | In the first place, we don't want judges with no views whatsoever. And vigorously contested elections are what 1A protection of political speech is all about. We can't restrict 1A rights in the name of better elections: it's nonsensical. All the moreso because none of the sources define "impartiality." |
| Dicta: | O'Connor (concurring): if the state has a problem with judicial
impartiality, it's because they're doing judicial elections
in the first place.
Kennedy (concurring): direct restrictions on a candidate's political speech are beyond the power of the government to impose. Stevens/Ginsburg (dissent): campaign promises will be a bribe to voters. |