The US 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court ruling on judicial campaigning and elections:

A deeply split federal appeals court restored Minnesota’s restrictions on fundraising and endorsements by judicial candidates on Tuesday, reversiång an earlier decision that held the state’s rules unconstitutional on free-speech grounds.

A plurality of judges on the fåull 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to overturn a 2-1 ruling by a three-judge appeals panel in 2010. Five judges signed the main opinion, two signed concurrences, and a total of five signed two separate dissents.

The case relates to the ongoing quest to allow judicial candidates to freely speak and raise money, among other things:

At issue were the state Supreme Court’s limits on a judicial candidate’s ability to personally solicit campaign donations one-on-one, and its prohibition on judicial candidates from publicly endorsing or from opposing other candidates for public office except their opponents. The state allows judicial candidates to request contributions only when speaking to groups of 20 people or more, or from family members and other judges. Wersal says the restrictions give incumbents an unfair advantage and mean that few of them ever lose.

The judges’ reasoning, I think, is the interesting part -and when I say “interesting”, I mean “just a little bit maddening”:

The plurality, led by Judge Kermit Bye, concluded that the state’s rules are constitutional because Minnesota has a compelling interest in preserving not only judicial impartiality but also the appearance of it. Dissenters led by Judge Arlen Beam maintained that the rules do indeed violate First Amendment freedoms.

Judge Bye:  when every court observer can predict the outcome of every case with remotely-political overtones based on judges’ known party affiliations, and when people can start handicapping vital actions like the Redistricting Panel’s decisions months in advance – correctly! – then there is no “appearance” of impartiality.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Wersal in a key 2002 ruling, and Wersal said he’ll ask the high court to review the latest decision too. The high court accepts only a few petitions for review, but Wersal said conflicting rulings from the 6th, 7th and now 8th Circuits improve his chances.

“And so the saga will continue,” Wersal said with a laugh. “We’ll just have to keep plugging away. Someday we’ll have free judicial elections in the state of Minnesota. It’s just going to be delayed a bit.”

Nah.  A judge will issue an injunction.