Of the rules in the 31 states, Canon seven C, subsection one of the judicial conduct code in Florida is that the Canon prohibits judicial election candidates from soliciting attorneys in favor of public endorsements. However, it only allows the creation of campaign committees for candidates to solicit attorney endorsements and money. In May, the Supreme Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to the Canon raised by Lanell Williams-Yulee, who is a non-judge candidate for the court in Hillsborough County. She was charged by the Florida of violating the Canon rule. After that, she registered as a judicial candidate and drafted a mass-mail letter declaring her intentions of vying for candidacy and seeking campaign contributions. In the agreement with the state bar, the Supreme Court issued an assessed costs of $ 1860.30 and a public reprimand (Brown, Para 3).Sometimes later, the Florida court discovered that the Canon did not go against the First Amendment. The court decided that the state had its compelling interests in maintaining public confidence. Therefore, protecting the integrity of the judiciary is an impartial role of the judiciary. The holding is bolstered by the large acceptance of comparable interests of the state by other Supreme Courts of the state. The justices continued to emphasize that the Canon had a course to further these interests since Williams was not barred from soliciting campaign funds. She was supposed to organize a separate campaign committee to engage in the fundraising task. In effect, according to the court the Canon did leave alternative means for judicial candidates to raise campaign money. The case was petitioned at the Supreme Court. The Courts of appeal of the federal government and the Arkansas, Florida and Oregon highest courts held that such rules did not go against the first Amendment. Therefore, a state rule that prohibits candidates for elected judicial positions from personally soliciting funds from anyone does not violate the First Amendment (Brown, Para 4).The main rationale of Brown and Plessey was based on social facts was against the decision to secondary and primary education. The Court then issued orders, making reference to Brown and Plessey. It made segregation unconstitutional in cases where that rationale did not apply. The orders of the court also had an impact on non-academic institutions such as public beaches and public Golf courses. This made such institution to adjust to embrace the
Bassok, Or. Public law and legal theory Research paper: The Supreme Court’s New Source of Legitimacy. New York University, 2013. Print.
Brown, Mayer. Justices Asked to Rule on Judicial Campaign Fundraising. 2014. Web. 12 November 2014. < http://www.mayerbrown.com/Justices-Asked-to-Rule-on-Judicial-Campaign-Fundraising-NLJ/>
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples