Wolfson v. Brammer, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112468

Wolfson challenged Canon 4 rules restricting judicial candidates' political activity as violating the First Amendment.
Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct governs candidates and judges; Commission on Judicial Conduct investigates violations and courts sanction; Bar Counsel prosecutes violations.
Wolfson ran for Kingman Precinct Justice of the Peace in 2006 and for Mohave County Superior Court in 2008, and sought to solicit campaign funds and endorse others.
He refrained from personal solicitations, endorsements, or other political activities due to his understanding of Rules 4.1(A)(6), (2)-(5).
By the time summary judgment briefing concluded, Wolfson had lost the 2008 election; the case faced mootness considerations and capable-of-repetition issues.
The court ultimately denied Wolfson’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commission Members’ and Bar Counsel’s motions; the Disciplinary Commission claim was moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of solicitation clause	Wolfson argues Rule 4.1(A)(6) violates First Amendment.	Defendants contend intermediate scrutiny suffices to balance interests in impartial judiciary.	Solicitation clause constitutional under intermediate scrutiny.
Constitutionality of political activities clauses	Wolfson argues Rules 4.1(A)(2)-(5) burden core political speech and association.	State interests in impartial judiciary justify restrictions on endorsements, speeches, and fundraising for others.	Political activities clauses constitutional under Seifert/Bauer balancing.
Standing for challenges to rules for non-sitting candidates	Wolfson seeks to strike these rules as applied to non-sitting candidates.	Rules apply to both candidates and sitting judges; standing limited to non-sitting context.	Court limited review to rules as applied to judicial candidates not sitting judges; standing adequate for challenged provisions.

Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (U.S. 2002) (strikes down canons restricting judicial candidates' views; strict scrutiny applied in White I)
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (due process and bias concerns in campaign-finance context)
Seifert v. Alexander, 608 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2010) (balancing test for endorsements and partisan speeches by judicial officials)
Bauer v. Shepard, 620 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2010) (extension of balancing test to judicial candidates' political speech)
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing government interests with employees' speech)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (government's interest in workplace efficiency vs. employees' rights)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (limits on public officials' speech to duties of office)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (freedom of association and speech considerations in political context)
U.S. v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1973) (limits on political activities of government employees)