High court turns away dispute over judicial campaign ads

By The Associated Press

10.21.02

Printer-friendly page

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused today to be drawn into another fight over judicial elections, this time over the shutdown of an advertising campaign just before an election.

The case comes to the Court as campaigns are in full swing around the country for judgeships. Nearly 40 states elect some judges, and many states are holding elections this year.

The Court earlier this year gave judicial candidates more freedom to reveal their opinions about issues like abortion and the death penalty. But today, the Court passed up a chance to consider when candidates or groups can be stopped from running ads.

It was the latest in a series of disputes that arose out of bitter 2000 judicial races.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's best-known business lobby, spent millions of dollars on television ads that were critical of some judicial candidates and supportive of others the chamber considered pro-business. The group was involved in races in Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi, Illinois and Ohio.

At issue in this case was whether a Mississippi court violated the group's First Amendment free-speech rights by blocking the ads. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia intervened at the time to let the ads air.

The group was accused of breaking corporate spending limits under Mississippi election law.

A separate case is pending at the Supreme Court — this one filed by Mississippi officials — that asks the Court to define campaign advertising and decide whether the chamber should have been forced to follow the state's campaign-finance reporting law.

The appeal that justices refused to review involves ads challenged by candidate Billy Joe Landrum, a lower court judge who lost his Mississippi Supreme Court race.

Attorneys for the Chamber of Commerce said the Court should make clear that temporary restraining orders like the one Landrum received are not appropriate for objections to political ads.

Landrum's attorney, Thomas Tucker Buchanan, says courts need to be able to intervene and that it's not enough for groups to face state penalties later.

The cases are Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Landrum, 01-1649, and Moore v. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, 02-305.

Related

Roundup: Judge refuses to block California crackdown on vote-swapping Web sites
Other First Amendment news from around the United States.  11.07.00

2002-2003 Supreme Court term coverage
Analysis and other coverage of 2002-2003 U.S. Supreme Court term.  10.07.02