Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

09-1713 Siefert v. Alexander

By: dmc-admin//June 14, 2010//

09-1713 Siefert v. Alexander

By: dmc-admin//June 14, 2010//

Listen to this article

Constitutional Law
First Amendment; judges

A state may not bar its judges from belonging to political parties, but it may bar them from endorsing partisan candidates and personally soliciting campaign contributions.
“After considering the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted Siefert’s motion, declared the rules prohibiting a judge or judicial candidate from announcing a partisan affiliation, endorsing partisan candidates, and personally soliciting contributions unconstitutional, and enjoined the defendants from enforcing these rules against Siefert. The Commission appeals. We affirm the district court’s holding on the partisan affiliation ban but reverse the district court’s ruling that the bans on endorsing partisan candidates and personally soliciting contributions are unconstitutional.”
“The crux of the state’s concern here seems to be that a judge who publicly affiliates with a political party has indicated that he is more inclined toward that party’s stance on the variety of legal issues on which that party has a position. But that is the purported compelling state interest that White I squarely rejected. 536 U.S. at 777-78. The state does not have a compelling interest in preventing candidates from announcing their views on legal or political issues, let alone prohibiting them from announcing those views by proxy. Nor can casting the argument in terms of the ‘appearance of bias’ save it—because ‘avoiding judicial preconceptions on legal issues is neither possible nor desirable, pretending otherwise by attempting to preserve the “appearance” of that type of impartiality can hardly be a compelling state interest either.’ Id. at 778.”
“The Commission also argues that the ban on party affiliation is designed to prevent bias for or against parties to a particular case, or the appearance of that bias. While this interest was certainly recognized in White I, this rule is not tailored to it. Arguably, party membership is an association that could call into question the impartiality of a judge when sitting on a case involving that party, or perhaps that party’s main rival. But see White II, 416 F.3d at 755 (‘[T]he fact that the matter comes before a judge who is associated with the Republican or Democratic Party would not implicate concerns of bias for or against that party unless the judge were in some way involved in the case beyond simply having an “R” or “D” . . . after his or her name.’) However, nothing in the record suggests that political parties themselves are such frequent litigants that it would be unworkable for a judge who chooses to affiliate with a political party to recuse himself when necessary.”
Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

09-1713 Siefert v. Alexander

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Tinder, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests