Judicial ethics codes historically barred candidates from stating issue positions, now partly relaxed

Evidence

Judicial candidates rarely have sufficient funds to publicize their views. Judicial ethics prohibit them from campaigning like prospective legislators, promising to benefit particular groups, or saying how they will vote on particular issues. This, however, may be changing: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) that the First Amendment protects the right of judicial candidates to take public positions on controversial issues, though in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015) it upheld a state ban on personal solicitation of campaign funds by judicial candidates. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 574

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies exactly what judicial-election ethics codes restrict — promising benefits, stating voting intentions — and the two Supreme Court rulings reshaping these limits.
• XREF: connects to: Political activity is often a prerequisite for becoming a judge yet then forbidden — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 556

Broader Connections

• Political activity is often a prerequisite for becoming a judge yet then forbidden #qualifies (0.78) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 556