"(T)he State has voluntarily taken on the risks to judicial bias described above. As a result, the State's claim that it needs to significantly restrict judges' speech in order to protect judicial impartiality is particularly troubling. If the State has a problem with judicial impartiality, it is largely one the State brought upon itself by continuing the practice of popularly electing judges."
(This guest article was contributed by Phoenix attorney Paul Weich; headline and links added by Arizona's Politics.)
(h/t to Election Law Blog)
* The full text of the relevant canon provides:
(A) A judge should not:
(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political
(2) make speeches for a political organization or
candidate, or publicly endorse a candidate for public
(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a
contribution to a political organization or candidate, or
attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event
sponsored by a political organization or candidate.
(B) A judge should resign the judicial office if a judge
becomes a candidate in a primary or general election
for any office.
(C) A judge should not engage in any other politicalAdministrative Office of U.S. Courts, Code of Judicial Conduct for United
activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from
engaging in activities described in Canon 4.
States Judges, Canon 5 (2011).
^ Twice-cleverly because that case was also successfully argued by Bopp.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.