Opinion ID: 626146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Aftermath of White I and White II

Text: In the wake of White I and White II, the Minnesota Supreme Court promulgated an amended version of the Code in response to the rulings. Specifically, the court eliminated the announce clause and revised the solicitation clause to allow candidates to solicit contributions if they spoke to an audience of 20 or more persons, and to allow campaign committees to use solicitation letters signed by the candidate. In early 2007, Wersal announced his candidacy for Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, running against then-Chief Justice Russell Anderson. As part of his campaign, Wersal wished to publicly endorse certain candidates for public office in 2008, including Tim Tinglestad, who ran against Justice Paul Anderson for the position of Associate Justice; Glen Jacobsen, a candidate for a judgeship in Minnesota District Court; and Michele Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota's Sixth District who ran for re-election. Wersal desired to publicly voice his support for the candidates through public statements, yard signs, phone calls, endorsement letters, and letters to potential contributors. However, he did not engage in any of these activities in fear of violating the Code. In addition, Wersal desired to personally solicit funds for his own campaign by going door-to-door and making personal phone calls. Again, Wersal refrained from engaging in this behavior for fear of violating the relevant ethical rules placed on judicial candidates. On March 3, 2008, Wersal filed suit against every member of the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards and Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board in his or her official capacity (referred to collectively as Minnesota), challenging the constitutionality of Canons 5A(1)(b), 5A(1)(d), and 5B(2) (2008). On July 1, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted a revised version of the Code. Canon 5A(1)(b) became Rule 4.1(A)(3); the new rule, which states a judge or judicial candidate shall not publicly endorse or, except for the judge or candidate's opponent, publicly oppose another candidate for public office, is identical to the old rule. Former Canon 5A(1)(d) is now Rule 4.1(A)(4); the new rule, which provides a judge or judicial candidate shall not solicit funds for a political organization or a candidate for public office, or make a contribution to a candidate for public office, was changed slightly from the old rule. Finally, Canon 5B(2) has been divided into two new rules which do not differ in substance from the canon they replaced. Rule 4.1(A)(6) bars judges and judicial candidates from personally solicit[ing] or accept[ing] campaign contributions other than as authorized by Rules 4.2 and 4.4. Rule 4.2(B)(3)(a) permits a judge or judicial candidate to make a general request for campaign contributions when speaking to an audience of 20 or more people. In addition, Rule 4.2(B)(3)(c) permits a judge or judicial candidate to personally solicit campaign contributions from members of the judge's family, from a person with whom the judge has an intimate relationship, or from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority. However, no rule permits what Wersal seeks: to personally solicit campaign contributions by walking door-to-door and making phone calls. [2] On March 10, 2008, then-Chief Justice Russell Anderson retired. Governor Tim Pawlenty appointed Eric Magnuson to replace Anderson on March 17, 2008. Due to the timing of the appointment, Chief Justice Magnuson was not required to face election until 2010. Although Wersal contemplated running against Associate Justice Paul Anderson, he ultimately refrained from running for any seat in 2008. At the time of the district court proceedings and initial appeal, Wersal stated he intended to run again for a seat on the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2010. [3] Before the district court, Wersal and the defendants brought cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court denied Wersal's motion and granted the defendants' motion. First, the district court concluded Wersal's challenge to Rule 4.1(A)(4)(a), the solicitation for political organization or candidate clause, was not ripe. Next, the district court upheld the endorsement clause under strict scrutiny, concluding the clause was narrowly tailored to Minnesota's interests in maintaining impartiality and maintaining the appearance of impartiality. Finally, the district court upheld the personal solicitation clause, holding the clause was narrowly tailored to meet Minnesota's interest in maintaining judicial impartiality. In sum, the district court rejected all of Wersal's challenges to the Code. On appeal, a divided panel of this court reversed the district court. We granted en banc review, and now proceed to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions.