Law Commons^™

Judicial Campaign Speech Restrictions In Light Of Republican Party Of Minnesota V. White, Julie Schuering Schuetz

Northern Illinois University Law Review

In the United States Supreme Court decision Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, a five-to-four majority struck down a judicial campaign speech restriction designed to uphold the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary and left remaining restrictions in serious doubt. This comment examines judicial campaign speech restrictions and suggests, in light of White, alternatives for states with elected judiciaries that wish to maintain the impartiality and integrity of their judiciaries. After exploring the tension between a state's compelling interest in maintaining an impartial judiciary and a judicial candidate's First Amendment rights, one possible alternative for dealing with judicial campaign speech …

Nova Scotia Barristers' Society V Murrant, Innis Christie, B Wd Badley, Deborah E. Gillis, Kevin Patriquin, Charles T. Schafer

Innis Christie Collection

The Hearing Panel of the Hearing Subcommittee, empanelled by the Chair of the Hearing Subcommittee in accordance with Regulation 40 of the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society Regulations (hereafter, "the Regulations") made under the authority in s. 59 of the Barristers and Solicitors Act, R.S.N.S 1989, as am. (hereafter, "the Act") to hear and decide this matter, consisted of:

Dr. B.W.D. Badley

Innis Christie, Q.C., Chair

Deborah E. Gillis, Q.C.

Kevin J. Patriquin

Dr. Charles T. Schafer

The Panel met to hear evidence and submissions by counsel on October 2 and 3, 2003. The Society was represented by …