*1 judgment The of the district court is ROVNER, WOOD, Circuit Judges affirmed. WILLIAMS and HAMILTON voted to rehear appeal the en banc. Affirmed
Circuit Judge SYKES did not participate in the consideration of this case.
ROVNER,
Judge,
Circuit
with whom
WOOD, WILLIAMS,
HAMILTON,
and
Judges, join,
Circuit
dissenting.
SIEFERT,
The Honorable John
I
my
As
noted in
in
dissent
the initial
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Alexander,
case
in
before us
v.
608
Siefert
(7th Cir.2010),
F.3d 974
regula-
laws and
v.
speech
tions that restrict
on the basis of
ALEXANDER,
al.,
James C.
et
in their
subject
content are
to a strict scrutiny
capacity
official
as members of the
analysis, and when we tread on the core of
Commission,
Wisconsin Judicial
De
rights,
example,
those
for
speech
on
about
fendants-Appellants.
qualifications
the
of
for public
candidates
office, we must do so with utmost caution.
No. 09-1713.
Siefert,
Nevertheless,
Seventh Circuit. forbidding Conduct a judge judicial or can- publically didate from endorsing speak- or 31, Aug. 2010. ing any on behalf of partisan candidate (the portion opinion of the from which I On Petition for En Rehearing Banc. dissented), majority opinion applied the a Jr., Bopp, Neeley, James Josiah Bopp, more balancing relaxed test not heretofore Bostrom, Haute, IN, Coleson & Terre applied fot to rights the First Amendment of Plaintiff-Appellee. judges judicial and candidates.
777 Court evaluated the Supreme the When HAYES LEMMERZ INTERNATION ju of and rights judges Amendment
First
AL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
of
in the seminal case
dicial candidates
White,
765,
Party v.
536 U.S.
Republican
v.
774-75,
2528,
122
Bd., 137, 141 & n. 1 Cir. 944 F.2d
1991).* departs in Our decision Siefert path by Supreme
from the carved the among and makes us an outlier our
Court
sister circuits.
Furthermore, panel since the time this majority dissenting
has issued its and Eighth cir-
opinions, both the Sixth and as unconstitutional
cuits have struck down that restricted the First
state statutes judges judicial of rights
Amendment and
candidates, including a Minnesota endorse- nearly to the prohibition
ment identical in majority opinion upheld
one the Siefert.
Wersal, 2945171, *8,*11. 2010 WL at See Carey, divergent at 208-09. Our
also on is an outlier and
opinion this issue respectfully reheard en banc. I
should be rehearing from the of en
dissent denial
banc. Stretton, scrutiny analysis decide predated Supreme but declined to a that the strict
*In case stringent might ap- scrutiny analysis a standard a strict in whether less Court's use of Party, applied ply. Id. at 141 n. 1. Republican the Third Circuit a