{"id":2227,"date":"2015-01-01T15:34:29","date_gmt":"2015-01-01T15:34:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.chicagocouncil.org\/?p=2227"},"modified":"2015-01-01T15:34:29","modified_gmt":"2015-01-01T15:34:29","slug":"chicago-appleseed-chicago-council-of-lawyers-join-in-amicus-brief","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chicagocouncil.org\/staging\/1601\/chicago-appleseed-chicago-council-of-lawyers-join-in-amicus-brief\/","title":{"rendered":"Chicago Appleseed & Chicago Council of Lawyers Join in Amicus Brief"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/h2>\n

Published on: <\/span>December 22, 2014<\/span><\/p>\n

By: <\/span>Elizabeth Monkus<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Posted Under: <\/span>Center for Judicial Performance and Integrity<\/a>, Chicago Appleseed<\/a>, Chicago Council of Lawyers<\/a>, Judicial Campaigns, Elections, and Selection<\/a>, News<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Chicago Appleseed and Chicago Council of Lawyers are signatories on an amicus brief submitted in Williams-Yulee vs. Florida Bar<\/a> before the Supreme Court this term. We join 9 other state and local nonpartisan organizations committed to creating and maintaining an ethical judicial system and promoting the confidence of the public in that system in the brief. Each state represented by a signatory has a judicial canon similar to the one at stake in Williams-Yulee. Canon 7, rule 67(B)(2)<\/a> specifically prohibits judicial candidates in Illinois from personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions.<\/p>\n

Williams-Yulee was a candidate for judicial office in Florida when she personally signed campaign solicitations in violation of Florida\u2019s Code of Judicial Conduct<\/a>, which applies to attorneys running for judicial office. Williams-Yulee has mounted a First Amendment challenge to the restriction<\/a>, arguing her right to ask for campaign donations personally is protected speech.<\/p>\n

The Amici argue, as CAFFJ and CCL consistently maintain, that the \u201cjudiciary\u2019s legitimacy depends almost entirely on its reputation for fairness and the public\u2019s confidence in its impartiality and independence.\u201d Judicial canons and rules constraining campaign activity by judicial candidates are critical in promoting the appearance of impartiality in judges by insulating them from perception of quid pro quo between campaign donors and elected officials.<\/p>\n

Although the personal political activity of judicial candidates requires protection under the Constitution, regulation of judicial campaigns is necessary and can be balanced against those interests in order to \u201cproperly protect the judicial process from being misjudged in the minds of the public\u201d Cox v. Louisiana<\/em>, 379 U. S. 559, 565 (1965)<\/a>. Judges are unique as elected officials in that their election must not be predicated upon what they intend to do in their office\u2014a judge must be elected on her competence, impartiality and ability to rule in accordance with the law, regardless of personal political opinion. Regulation of the campaign activity personally handled by judicial candidates helps maintain this barrier in an appropriately narrowly-tailored way.<\/p>\n

We thank the Brennan Center<\/a> and the Philadelphia law firm of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP<\/a> for facilitating our participation in this brief. Other signatories on the brief are:<\/p>\n