{"id":2243,"date":"2015-02-02T20:41:05","date_gmt":"2015-02-02T20:41:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.chicagocouncil.org\/?p=2243"},"modified":"2015-02-02T20:41:05","modified_gmt":"2015-02-02T20:41:05","slug":"chicago-appleseed-chicago-council-of-lawyers-join-in-amicus-brief-on-judicial-campaign-spending","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chicagocouncil.org\/staging\/1601\/chicago-appleseed-chicago-council-of-lawyers-join-in-amicus-brief-on-judicial-campaign-spending\/","title":{"rendered":"Chicago Appleseed & Chicago Council of Lawyers Join in Amicus Brief on Judicial Campaign Spending"},"content":{"rendered":"

By:\u00a0Elizabeth Monkus<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Chicago Appleseed and Chicago Council of Lawyers are signatories on an amicus brief submitted in\u00a0Williams-Yulee vs. Florida Bar<\/a>\u00a0before 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.\u00a0Canon 7, rule 67(B)(2)<\/a>\u00a0specifically prohibits judicial candidates in Illinois from personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions.<\/p>\n

Williams-Yulee was a candidate for judicial office in Florida\u00a0when she personally signed campaign solicitations in violation of Florida’s Code of Judicial Conduct<\/a>, which applies to attorneys running for judicial office.\u00a0Williams-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 Chicago Appleseed and the Chicago Council of Lawyers\u00a0consistently maintain, that the “judiciary’s legitimacy depends almost entirely on its reputation for fairness and the public’s confidence in its impartiality and independence.” 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 “properly protect the judicial process from being misjudged in the minds of the public”\u00a0Cox 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-a 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\u00a0Brennan Center<\/a>\u00a0and the Philadelphia law firm of\u00a0Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP<\/a>\u00a0for facilitating our participation in this brief. Other signatories on the brief are:<\/p>\n