Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar

Do judicial candidates have the right to personally solicit campaign funds under the First Amendment or does a state have a compelling interest in such a narrowly tailored rule to preserve the integrity of the judiciary?  This is the question that the Supreme Court take up in  Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar (No. 13-1499).

The case comes from Florida after the Florida Bar pursued a violation of Canon 7C(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits personal solicitations by judicial candidates:

 A candidate, including an incumbent judge, for a judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates shall not personally solicit campaign funds, or solicit attorneys for publicly stated support, but may establish committees of responsible persons to secure and manage the expenditure of funds for the candidate’s campaign and to obtain public statements of support for his or her candidacy. Such committees are not prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions and public support from any person or corporation authorized by law. A candidate shall not use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the candidate or members of the candidate’s family.

A referee recommended that Lanell Williams-Yulee be found guilty of violating Canon 7C(1).  Williams-Yulee admitted that she had reviewed and signed a letter that soliciting campaign contributions.  Before the referee, Williams-Yulee said she did not think that Canon 7C(1) applied to her because she was, at the time, the only candidate in the race.

The Florida Supreme Court, in a per curium opinion, held that Williams-Yulee had violated Canon 7C(1).  The Florida Supreme Court acknowledged that Canon 7C(1) restricted a judicial candidate’s speech.  However, the First Amendment allows for restrictions on speech where it serves a compelling government interest, the Florida Supreme Court held, “Florida has ‘a compelling state interest in preserving the integrity of [its] judiciary and maintaining the public’s confidence in an impartial judiciary.'”  After reviewing other state supreme court interpretations of such prohibitions, and the United States Supreme Court’s requirement of exceptions to the First Amendment being “narrowly tailored,” the Florida Supreme Court concluded that Canon 7C(1) “target[ed] and eliminate[d] no more than the exact source of the ‘evil’ it [sought] to remedy.”  Canon 7C(1) was intended to insulate judges from directly engaging in fundraising while allowing them to organize committees to do so.  The Florida Supreme Court held that Canon 7C(1) “promotes the State’s compelling interests in preserving the integrity of the judiciary and maintaining the public’s confidence in an impartial judiciary, and that it is narrowly tailored to effectuate those interests.”

The petitioner to the United States Supreme Court has asked the Court to decide “[w]hether a rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment.”