Fixing White


The federal courts should stop dismissing the states' concerns about judicial independence and start helping them interpret the First Amendment in a way that gives due deference to the interests of candidates, voters, litigants, and the public, and that does not corrupt the concept of judicial accountability.

It must be tempting for members of the Minnesota Supreme Court and other elected judges to say "we told you so" when they run into justices of the United States Supreme Court at a federal/state judicial conference or bar meeting. In 2002, the federal high court rejected the Minnesota court's conclusion that restrictions on judicial campaign speech (specifically the announce clause) were a necessary deterrent to the politicization of judicial campaigns and, therefore, of the judicial office. Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), is not entirely to blame for headlines like "Spending Leaps in Races Across U.S.," and "Appellant Seeks Recusal Because of Campaign Comment," and "In Kentucky Supreme Court Race, Judges Get Out Their Soapboxes." Interest groups with no interest in judicial independence, and judges and judicial candidates who would do better in legislative or executive roles, share some responsibility.

But the decision understandably has been read as a license to ignore traditions of restraint and dignity in judicial campaigns, accelerating the deterioration. The aftermath of White reveals that the five-justice majority was surprisingly naïve about the threat politics poses to judges. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, one of the five-member majority in White, appeared to acknowledge that miscalculation when she said last year in a speech to California judges that her vote in the White case was one of the few decisions in her long career that gave her pause.

Although the holding in White was narrow, the majority's analysis opened the door to a series of lower court decisions that have held unconstitutional, among others, restrictions on personal solicitation of campaign contributions and partisan political identification in states with non-partisan elections. Fortunately, the American Bar Association held its ground in the recent revisions to the model code of judicial conduct, rejecting attempts to eliminate almost all restrictions on the political activity of judges.

Contrary to the arguments of some, requiring a judge to disqualify based on political conduct that raises a question about impartiality is not an effective alternative to a prohibition of that conduct. Disqualification in many states is self-executing. A judge who should recuse may not do so, and having the decision reversed on appeal years later is not an adequate remedy and damages trust in the judicial process. Moreover, if a state supreme court justice refuses to disqualify, litigants generally have no way of even challenging that decision. Finally, frequent disqualifications would create administrative burdens in the court system and, on the supreme court level, mean that the people chosen by voters to resolve the thorniest legal issues in the state would be unavailable to do precisely that. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Fixing White
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.