Randolph Wolfson v. AZ Comm'n on Judicial Conduct, Members of the AZ Sup. Court Disciplinary Comm'n & AZ Chief Bar Counsel
May 09, 2014OUTCOME: Each of Wolfson's Claims were upheld on Appeal twice to the Federal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Arizona cannot stop unelected judicial candidates from soliciting campaign contributions in person, the 9th Circuit ruled, Randolph Wolfson, brought the suit in 2008 alleging that several provision ... s of the regulatory Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct violated the First Amendment. Wolfson also sought to speak about his views on legal and political issues while campaigning for future office, but feared he would be disciplined under the code. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit considered the case last year after U.S. District Judge Frederick Martone upheld the Arizona restrictions in 2011. In its reversal , the San Francisco-based appellate deemed the five challenged provisions unconstitutional. The majority found that a rule banning judicial candidates from "speechifying for another candidate or organization, endorsing or opposing another candidate, fundraising for another candidate or organization, or actively taking part in any political campaign other than his or her own" was unconstitutional. When a state chooses to elect its judges and restricts the candidates' speech, it "sets itself on a collision course with the First Amendment," Voters have a right to know the political views of a potential judge, the majority added. "Any imperilment of public confidence has its roots in the very nature of judicial elections, and not in the speech of candidates who must participate in those elections to become judges," Paez wrote. The ruling also finds Arizona's rule on solicitations are "underinclusive:
