# Republican Party of Minnesota v. White **536 U.S. 765 (2002).** The decision that opened the modern judicial campaign, by holding that a state may not stop a candidate for judicial office from saying what he thinks about the issues he will decide. ## Holding Minnesota's judicial code contained an "announce clause" barring candidates for judicial office from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues. In a 5–4 decision the Court held the clause violated the **First Amendment**: it was a content-based restriction on core political speech, and the state's asserted interest in judicial impartiality — in the sense of a lack of preconception about legal issues, as distinct from a lack of bias toward a *party* — was not a compelling interest the clause was narrowly tailored to serve. ## Why it matters structurally *White* is the hinge between "a state has chosen to elect its judges" and "a state has chosen to run judicial campaigns like other campaigns." Once a candidate may campaign on positions, the race acquires the thing that attracts outside money: a predictable product. Seven years later [[Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.]] supplied the only constitutional check on what that money can buy, and pitched it at the extraordinary case. ## See also - [[State Judicial Selection Crosswalk]] - [[Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.]] - [[Judicial Independence]] - [[Citizens United v. FEC]]