The Court’s order list is here. Bauer and Siefert had been held, perhaps until after the Court’s argument in the Carrigan case [Disclosure: I am one of Mr. Carrigan’s lawyers]. Siefert v. Alexander involves a judicial candidate’s personal solicitation of campaign contributions. Bauer v. Shepard involves, among other things, limits on the political party activities of judicial candidates. I wrote last August that “[t]he opinion in Bauer v. Shephard is likely to be quite influential, though it does not break much new doctrinal ground. Judge Easterbrook’s writing is clear and strong, and other courts could well decide to follow it. I found this sentence on page 16 particularly important: ‘Allowing judges to participate in politics would poison the reputation of the whole judiciary and seriously impair public confidence, without which the judiciary cannot function. Preserving that confidence is a compelling interest. No one could contemplate with equanimity the prospect of a state’s chief justice also being the head of a political party and doling out favors or patronage, or deciding who runs for legislative office. States are entitled to ensure not only that judges behave in office with probity and dignity, but also that their conduct makes it possible for them to serve impartially.'”
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear these cases has no precedential value. However, the Court’s decision to decline to hear them, especially given the strong First Amendment jurisprudence of this Court, will no doubt lead those supporting special judicial campaign rules in judicial elections a reason to breathe a sigh of relief.