- Beretta leaves Maryland over gun laws, heads for Tennessee
- Neal Boortz defends Hillary Clinton for representing child rapist
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- Top federal judge uses pizza to explain complex Obamacare situation
- Obama, Biden overhaul job training programs
- Drought-plagued Californians turn to paint to keep lawns green
- ISIL now forcing Iraqi shopkeepers to veil mannequins in Mosul
- 11 parents of Nigeria’s abducted girls die
- Genetic mapping triggers new hope on schizophrenia
- Turkish P.M. Erdogan won’t speak to Obama, but he’ll take calls from Biden
Supreme Court denies judicial-endorsement petition
Question of the Day
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition from Montana officials who wanted to revive the state’s ban on political parties endorsing judicial candidates.
Attorney General Tim Fox and Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl filed the petition last October to restore a prohibition on endorsements dating to 1935. A 2012 ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had said the endorsements are allowed under the free-speech rights of the First Amendment.
In denying the petition, justices let that ruling stand and declined to hear arguments in the case.
Fox’s office said in a statement Tuesday that he was concerned about federal courts invalidating state laws without giving states the chance to defend them. He did not comment directly on the outcome of the ruling.
The denial came on the heels of another petition turned down by the court this week in which Fox sought to restrict federal regulations of guns made and kept in Montana. The Supreme Court rarely accepts petitions to review lower-court rulings
Fox said that he “will consistently assert that evidentiary hearings are necessary before a federal court should consider the merits of attacks on Montana’s laws.”
The Supreme Court rarely accepts petitions to review lower-court rulings.
The case originated with a 2012 lawsuit filed against the state ban by the Sanders County Republican Central Committee, which said it wanted to endorse candidates who share its judicial philosophy.
The committee’s attorney, Matthew Monforton, said the Supreme Court’s action means Montana’s treatment of judicial candidates must conform to the 49 states in the U.S. that already allowed political-party endorsements. Monforton had waived the right to respond to Montana’s petition because he thought it had no merit.
“The First Amendment is still in effect throughout the country, including Montana. Montana was far afield in asserting otherwise,” he said.
U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell originally ruled against the Sanders County GOP, saying the county party’s objective was to transform the state’s judicial elections into “functionally partisan” contests.
The GOP committee appealed to the 9th Circuit, which said the endorsements the county party wants to make are protected speech under the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens’ United ruling.
The 9th Circuit ruling also allows spending by political parties on behalf of judicial candidates but no direct contributions.
TWT Video Picks
The president could pay the full price for ignoring Congress
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- Gen. James Amos, Marine Corps commandant, slams Obama's handling of Iraq
- 'Straight White Guy Festival' supposedly set for Ohio park
- LYONS: Small-arms treaty, big Second Amendment threat
- Pentagon team dispatched to Ukraine amid crisis with Russia
- Obama family set to buy $4.25M desert home in California: report
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
- DEACE: How to go from civil rights icon to bigot in one quote
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq