## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f A p p ea ls

F o rth e S e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 1713 T HE H ONO RABL E J OHN S IEFERT, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J AM ES C. A LEX ANDER, et al., in th eir
o f f i ci alc apa ci ty a s m embe r s o fthe W i sc o ns i n J udi ci alCo m m i ss i o n, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

On Pe tition fo r Re hearing E n Ban c

D ECI DE D A UGUS T 31, 2010

P ER C U R I AM
. A m aj or i ty ofthe j ud ges i n acti ve ser vi ce did notf avo r re hear i ng en banc, and the peti ti on there

f o r e i s de ni e d. Cir cui t J ud ges Rovner, W oo d, W i l l i am s a nd H am i l ton vot ed to r ehearthe appeal en b anc. Circu it J udg e S y k es di d no t par ti ci pat e i n the c o nsi derat i on o fthi s ca se.2 N o. 09

- 1713
R OV NER, Cir cu i tJ udg e, w i t h w h o m W OO D , W I L L I A MS, a nd H A MI L T ON , C ircu it Judges , j oi n, diss enti ng. A s Inot ed i n my di ss en t i n the i niti alc as e be f o r e us i n Si e f e r tv. A lexa nd er, 60 8 F

. 3d 974 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10), l aw s a nd r egul ations th a t r e strict sp eech on th e basis of con ten t are subj ect to a s tr i ct s cruti ny anal ysi s, and w hen w e t re ad
on the cor e of thos e ri ghts, f or exam ple , on sp eech about the qual i f i cati ons ofcandi dates f or publ i c o f f i ce, w e m u st d o so w ith u tm os t c a u t i on . Siefert, 60 8 F

. 3d at 99 1

. Ne v e r t he l e s s , i n e v a l ua t i ng W i s c o ns i n’ s Co de o f J udi ci alCo nduc t f o rbi d d ing a j udg e o r j udi ci alc an d idate fro m publi cal l y e nd or si ng o r speaki ng o n beh alf of any parti san candidate ( the port i on of th e o pini on f ro m wh i ch I d i sse nted), the m aj or i ty opi ni on a pp l i ed
a m or e r el axed bal an ci ng te st not here tof or e a pp l i ed to the Fi rs t A m endm ent ri ghts of j ud ges and jud icial candidate s. W he n t he S up r e me Co ur te v a l ua t e d t he F i r s tAmen dm en t r i g ht s of j udg es a nd j udi ci alc an di dat es i n the
sem inal ca se of R epubl ican Pa rty v. White, 53 6 U.S

. 76 5, 774- 75 ( 2002 ) , i t di d so th ro ugh the l ens o fst ri ct s cruti ny ( as d id t h o se j us tices w riti ng i n d issent ). Ev ery circuit cou rt t o follo w h as d on e t h e s am e. See We rs al v. Sext on , No

. 09

- 1578 , 2010 W L 29451 71, at * 3 (8th C ir . Ju l. 29, 2010 ); C a rey v . Wo lnitz ek, N os. 08- 6468 , 08

- 6538 , 20 10 W L 27718 66, at *6 (6t h C ir. 20 10 ); R epubl ican P arty v. Wh it e, 41 6 F

. 3d 73 8, 74 9-5 0 (8t h C ir. 20 05 ); Weav er v. B o nn er, 30 9 F

. 3d 1312 , 13 19 (11 th C ir. 20 02 ). See a lso St r e t t on v. D i s cipl i nary Bd. , 94 4N o. 09

- 1713 3

I n Str et t on , a ca se tha t pr ed ated th e S u p rem e C ou rt’ s use  ofa s t ri c ts c ru t i ny a nal ys i s i n R ep u b li ca n P ar ty , the Third Circuitapp lied a s tr ic t s cruti ny analysi s bu t decl ined to dec i d e w h et h er a l es s str in g en t st a n d a rd m ig h t a p p ly

. Id. at 141 and n. 1.

8- 31- 10 F

. 2d 13 7, 141 & n. 1 ( 3d Ci r . 1 99 1) Our de ci si o n i n Siefert  d e p a r t s f r o m t h e p a t h c a r v e d b y t h e S u p r e me C o u r t an d
m ake s us an o utl i er am ong our si ste r ci rcui ts. Furtherm or e, si nce the ti m e thi s panel h as iss ued i ts m aj o r i ty a nd di ss enting o pi ni o ns , b o ththe S i xt h a nd Eig hth ci rcui ts have str uck down as unconsti tu ti onal sta te sta tutes thatr est ri cted the Fi rs t Am endm ent r i ghts ofj ud ges and j ud i ci al candi dates, i nc lu d in g a M i nnesot a en do r se m en t p r o hibi ti o n n ea r l y i den ti ca l t o the o ne the
m aj o r i ty o pi ni o n up he l d i n Siefert

. Wersal, 2 0 1 0 WL 2945 171, at* 8, * 11 . See also C a rey, 20 10 W L 2 77 18 66, at* 17. Our di ve r g en t o pi ni o n o n thi s i ss ue i s ano ut l i era nd shoul d be rehear d en banc. Ir espect full y di sse nt f ro m the deni al o fr ehear i ng en banc.