Sanders County Republican Cent v. Steve Bullock- Opinion
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19522
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Montana has elected judges in nonpartisan elections since 1935 under Mont. Code Ann. § 13-14-111.
- Montana criminalizes political party endorsements or expenditures to support or oppose judicial candidates under Mont. Code Ann. § 13-35-231, with individual liability under § 13-35-105.
- Sanders County Republican Central Committee sought to endorse judicial candidates and fund endorsements under this regime.
- District court denied the Committee’s motion for a preliminary injunction; the Committee appeals for immediate relief.
- The issues center on whether the statute violatesthe Committee’s First Amendment rights of speech and association, and the appropriate scrutiny standard.
- appellate jurisdiction is asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1); the court reverses and grants injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 13-35-231 restricts protected political speech | Committee argues it licenses political speech and association by parties. | Montana defends restriction as a legitimate regulation of elections and judiciary | Unconstitutional on its face; restricts core First Amendment rights |
| What standard governs review (strict scrutiny vs balancing) | Strict scrutiny should apply to content-based restriction on political speech. | Balanced test should apply aligning with Tenth Amendment interests. | Strict scrutiny applies; content-based restriction fails |
| Whether Montana has a compelling interest and narrow tailoring | Montana cannot show necessity of the ban for an independent judiciary. | Promoting independent judiciary justifies restrictions on endorsements. | No compelling interest established; not narrowly tailored |
| Irreparable harm from enforcement | Immediate injunction needed; speech chilling harms imminent with elections near. | Irreparable harm not shown absent full record. | Irreparable harm shown; injunction warranted |
| Public interest in enjoining the statute | Public interest favors safeguarding First Amendment rights and free political speech. | Public interest in maintaining a fair judiciary justifies restrictions. | Public interest favors injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (Supreme Court 2010) (political speech rights extend to associations and corporations)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1976) (speech protection for political advocacy; campaign speech core to First Amendment)
- Eu v. S.F. Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (Supreme Court 1989) (associations have First Amendment rights in political speech)
- Geary v. Renne, 911 F.2d 280 (9th Cir. 1990) (political parties and adherents have rights of expression and association)
- Republican Party of Minn. v. White (White I), 536 U.S. 765 (Supreme Court 2002) (limits on judicial candidates’ speech during elections; strict scrutiny applicable to restrictions)
- Republican Party of Minn. v. White (White II), 416 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussion of partisan endorsements and its effects on judicial independence)
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (Supreme Court 1992) (content-based restrictions require compelling justification)
- United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (Supreme Court 2012) (First Amendment requires restrictions to be actually necessary to achieve interest)
- City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (Supreme Court 1994) (under-inclusivity of restrictions undermines governmental rationale)
- Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2009) (First Amendment analysis in prelim injunctions; harms and public interest)