|| A Judge Lynching: U.S. Supreme Court Decision Offers Support To Judge Boardman|
News Release - for immediate release
Contact: William Boardman (802) 457-1782
By William Boardman
Woodstock, VT - A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision offers support to Assistant Judge William Boardman's argument
that what he said and wrote during the 2006 election was protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Boardman is appealing a recent order of recommendation from the Vermont Judicial Conduct Board,
which seeks to punish him for things he said and didn't say near the end of the 2006 election campaign.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, held that a Minnesota rule
dealing with political speech during a judicial election campaign violated the First Amendment.
Writing for the court's 5-4 majority, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia observed that,"the First Amendment does
not permit [the State] to achieve its goal by leaving the principle of elections in place while preventing the
candidates from discussing what the elections are about."
The conduct board seeks to sanction Judge Boardman for critical remarks about his opposition, which had
freely criticized him for months beforehand. Judge Boardman also argues that, while the conduct board
invented a narrative to support its claim, even if the board's fiction were true, he still has a right
to free speech like any other citizen.
In his concurring opinion in the Minnesota case, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "What [the State] may
not do, however, is censor what people hear as they undertake to decide for themselves which candidate is
most likely to be an exemplary judicial officer. Deciding the relevance of candidate speech is the right
of voters, not the State.. The law in question here contradicts the principle that unabridged speech is the
foundation of political freedom."
In Judge Boardman's case, unlike the Minnesota case of 2002, there is no specific Vermont rule defining
permissible speech by judicial candidates in an election. Rather, the conduct board is seeking to apply a
general rule, retroactively, in support of a complaint from a losing candidate.
Vermont has been electing Assistant Judges since it was an eighteenth century republic. At the time
of the founding of the United States, and thereafter until 1812, Vermont was the only state to elect
Justice Kennedy also wrote in his concurring opinion, "The State cannot opt for an elected judiciary and
then assert that its democracy, in order to work as desired, compels the abridgement of speech. By
abridging speech based on its content, [the State] impeaches its own system of free and open elections."
Vermont rules provides no standards by which any judicial candidate may know what speech is safe and
what speech might be sanctionable. In Judge Boardman's case, the conduct board decided, a year and a
half after the fact, that he had crossed a line that is nowhere laid out.
Again, writing for the majority in the Minnesota case, Justice Scalia pointed out that "the notion that
the special context of electioneering justifies an abridgement of the right to speak out on disputed
issues sets our First Amendment Jurisprudence on its head.. We have never allowed the government to
prohibit candidates from communicating relevant information to voters during an election."
[Emphasis in original.]
The judicial conduct board is appointed by the Vermont Supreme Court, which then hears appeals from the
board it has appointed. The board comprises nine members, including six lawyers, three of whom are sitting
judges. Their order of recommendation did not address First Amendment issues.
Discuss this article in our forums.
Listen To SPOXTalk.
| Related Links|
| Article Rating|