High court: States may ban judicial candidates from personal fundraising

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the Supreme Court’s liberals in ruling that states may forbid judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions. Rejecting the charge that the restrictions violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, the 5-to-4 decision upheld a Florida law that is similar to others in 29 states that elect judges but restrict their role in campaign fundraising. “Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “And a state’s decision to elect its judiciary does not compel it to treat judicial candidates like campaigners for political office.”

The result was exceptional in two ways. It separated Chief Justice Roberts from his usual colleagues on the right, and it was a rare win for advocates of campaign finance restrictions after a nearly unbroken string of rulings from the high court that the First Amendment trumps such restrictions. The difference, Roberts said, is that the public expects judges to be fair and disinterested players, while other elected officials are free to follow the wishes of those who support them. “In deciding cases, a judge is not to follow the preferences of his supporters, or provide any special consideration to his campaign donors,” Roberts wrote, adding that “therefore, our precedents applying the First Amendment to political elections have little bearing on the issues here.”