Why the Changes in our Judicial Elections?

Answer: Two court decisions. The first big decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 in a case called the White case. The lawsuit was brought by the Republican Party and by Greg Wersal who has unsuccessfully run for judge several times. They challenged some of the ground rules or “judicial canons” that govern the judicial elections. One of the rules they challenged said that judicial candidates could not “announce their views on disputed legal or political issues.” The Supreme Court struck down that rule and said that the rule violated the first amendment.

Then in August 2005, the second big decision was issued by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision was based on the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision, and it struck down four additional canons. Because of that ruling, judicial candidates may now:

1. Speak to political gatherings such as political conventions
   
   
2. Ask political parties for political endorsement and use those endorsements in running for judge
   
   
3. Indicate their political affiliation (for example, whether they are democrat or republican) and
   
   
4. Ask groups of 20 or more for campaign contributions or directly ask in writing.
   
   

Judicial candidates did all of these things for the first time in modern history in our last judicial election (in 2006).

The two court decisions were based on the first amendment to the constitution -- the right to free speech. That amendment is given the highest protection of any right in our constitution, because all of our other rights flow from it and are protected by it. But the fact that speech is protected by the constitution and must be allowed doesn’t mean that it’s good for our system.