Wersal v. Sexton
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6205
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Wersal, a candidate for Minnesota Supreme Court, challenged three provisions of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct: endorsement, personal solicitation, and solicitation for a political organization or candidate, as violating the First Amendment.
- The district court denied Wersal’s summary-judgment motion and upheld the Board defendants on all challenged provisions.
- The en banc court previously reversed a panel decision on two clauses (partisan-activities and solicitation) but upheld the challenge to others in White II; after review, the en banc court affirms the district court’s upholding of the challenged clauses.
- Minnesota amended the Code after White I and White II, removing or revising certain provisions (announce clause removed; solicitation rules amended to allow some group solicitations and letters signed by candidates).
- Wersal sought to publicly endorse candidates and personally solicit funds; he argued these activities are core political speech protected by the First Amendment and that the restrictions are not narrowly tailored to compelling state interests.
- The court conducts strict-scrutiny analysis to determine whether the endorsement and solicitation provisions are narrowly tailored to compelling state interests in maintaining impartiality and appearance of impartiality in the judiciary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are endorsement and solicitation clauses narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny? | Wersal argues clauses are overbroad/underinclusive and chill core speech. | Appellees maintain the clauses protect impartiality and appearance of impartiality and are narrowly tailored. | Yes, narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny (upheld)}},{ |
| Is the Rule prohibiting personal solicitation of campaign funds constitutional under strict scrutiny? | Wersal contends it is unnecessary and overbroad, violating core political speech. | Appellees assert it prevents quid pro quo and appearance of impropriety. | Yes, narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny (upheld) |
Key Cases Cited
- Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (U.S. 2002) (announce clause; strict scrutiny; core political speech concerns for judicial elections)
- Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (en banc), 416 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2005) (endorsement/partisan-activities; appearance of impartiality issues; strict scrutiny)
- White v. Williams (White I), 536 U.S. 765 (U.S. 2002) (content-based restrictions in judicial elections; strict scrutiny)
- White II (en banc), 416 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2005) (endorses that solicitation clauses may fail under strict scrutiny; tailoring discussion)
- Caperton v. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (U.S. 2009) (Due Process requires remediating bias concerns; recusal as remedy in extraordinary cases)
- Carey v. Wolnitzek, 614 F.3d 189 (6th Cir. 2010) (solicitation restrictions; First Amendment scrutiny in judicial elections)
- Siefert v. Alexander, 608 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2010) (endorsement clauses; strict scrutiny considerations; appearance of bias)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (political contributions and campaign finance; First Amendment relevance)
- Lopez Torres v. Elections Bd. of New York, 552 U.S. 196 (U.S. 2008) (concerns about election processes; judicial elections Context of first amendment)