Judicial Campaign Contributions: Rules and Implications

Judicial selection in the states is not uniform, but most states have some form of judicial elections. Some are contested elections--whether partisan or nonpartisan--and some involve uncontested retention elections. During an election, judicial candidates must abide by ethical rules that explicitly restrict their ability to speak freely.
What are the implications, if any, for restrictions on judicial speech arising from different systems of selecting and retaining judges? How do judicial campaign experiences inform free speech perspectives? Join us for a conversation about how judicial elections intersect with free speech rights.
Featuring:

Hon. Clint Bolick, Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
Hon. J. Brett Busby, Justice, Texas Supreme Court
Hon. Daniel Kelly, Former Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court
(Moderator) Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court (ret.)


Related Reading(s):

Op. Ed By Justice Bolick
Other Materials