New York Times

WASHINGTON — Almost five years to the day after the Citizens United decision reshaped American politics, the Supreme Court on Tuesday will turn its attention to judicial elections.

Such contests already sometimes resemble regular political campaigns, awash in money and negative advertising. And judges already routinely hear cases involving lawyers and litigants who have contributed to their campaigns.

But 30 of the 39 states with judicial elections have tried to draw the line by forbidding judicial candidates to personally ask for money, saying that such solicitations threaten the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence in the judicial system.

Tuesday’s case is a First Amendment challenge to the solicitation bans, which have been struck down by four federal appeals courts. But most of the American legal establishment supports them. The American Bar Association and a group representing the chief justices of every state have filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to uphold the bans.

Opinions seem more divided among incumbent judges on lower courts and candidates seeking to challenge them. They say direct requests are more efficient than ones made through campaign committees and are no more apt to lead to corruption.

Marcus Carey, who twice lost judicial elections in Kentucky, said there was no point to requiring that contribution requests be made through intermediaries.

“You create this farce,” he said. “I have to tell them who to call.”

At the same time, he said, everything else about judicial elections resembles an ordinary political campaign.

“There are fund-raising events,” said Mr. Carey, who successfully challenged Kentucky’s ban. “There are cocktail parties. There are shrimp and grits. And the candidate is there. It’s a game.”

“It is far more effective,” he said, “if a candidate calls me on the phone and says, ‘Marc, I need your help.’ ”

Margaret H. Marshall, a former chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, responded: “Of course it’s effective. That’s the problem. The level of coercion is that much higher.”

Randolph Wolfson, who has lost two judicial elections in Arizona, said solicitation bans protect incumbent judges and disfavor outsiders. “The inability to raise funds directly for a minor-party candidate is just devastating,” he said.

Mr. Wolfson’s challenge to Arizona’s ban is pending before the full United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in California.

Judge David Certo, who serves on a state trial court in Indianapolis, said that his state’s solicitation ban went too far.

“I’m not allowed to solicit anybody for a contribution — not my mom, not my wife, not my brother, who lives in Arizona,” he said.

He admitted to a little uneasiness about some sorts of requests.

“Getting money from people appearing before me is probably not the best idea,” said Judge Certo, who lost a First Amendment challenge to the Indiana law. “But lawyers appearing before me are eager to help me.”

Personal solicitations are allowed in the judicial ethics rules of nine states, including Texas and Alabama. Four former chief justices from those states filed a brief describing their own use of a practice they said was “ingrained in our political and legal cultures.”

“Our experience confirms,” they wrote, that “there is a real risk that solicitation can morph into a demand.”

In an interview, one of the former chief justices, Thomas R. Phillips, who served on the Texas Supreme Court, added that “dialing for dollars sometimes results in untoward things slipping out during those conversations.”

Mr. Phillips said that allowing personal solicitations may be appropriate in some states. But he added that other states should be free to make the opposite choice, notwithstanding the First Amendment.

Still, he said, the fear of corruption, at least on state supreme courts with many members, can be overstated.

“One vote is not all that decisive,” he said. “You have to justify everything you do by reason. And hopefully you’re asking a wide net for contributions.”

Harry Lee Anstead, a former chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court, countered that public confidence is undermined by direct solicitations.

“The rule of law is premised on impartial judges and not on the image of a robed hand reaching out to take money from a contributor,” he said.

Tuesday’s case, Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, No. 13-499, concerns Lanell Williams-Yulee, who lost a race for a seat on the county court in Hillsborough County, Fla., which includes Tampa. She was reprimanded and made to pay $1,860 in court costs for signing a fund-raising letter.

Through her lawyers, Ms. Williams-Yulee declined interview requests. In her briefs, she said Florida’s ban is a poor way to address potential problems.

In barring not only one-on-one requests but also mass mailings and speeches to large groups, one of her briefs said, Florida’s solicitation ban censors speech that is unlikely to give rise to judicial corruption. The ban also does too little, the brief continued, by allowing candidates to raise money through campaign committees and then personally thank their donors.

But Daniel L. Wallach, a Florida lawyer, said the state’s history, which includes recent and widespread judicial corruption, justifies the solicitation ban.

In the 1970s, two justices of the Florida Supreme Court resigned after evidence emerged that they had tried to fix cases for contributors.

A third stepped down when a gambling junket paid for by a litigant came to light. A fourth left the court in connection with a scandal including draft opinions ghostwritten by lobbyists.

“Florida is unlike all the other states that have elected judges,” said Mr. Wallach, who filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Florida ban on behalf of Mr. Anstead, other former chief justices and bar leaders.

Even opponents of the solicitation bans say some limits may be appropriate or at least less offensive to the First Amendment.

Ms. Williams-Yulee said states should consider limiting contributions and requiring judges to recuse themselves from cases in which their impartiality is open to question.

A brief from Judge Certo, Mr. Carey, Mr. Wolfson and others said states may ban solicitation inside courthouses and from people involved in pending lawsuits. The American Civil Liberties Union, which supports Ms. Williams-Yulee, said less restrictive ways of ensuring judicial integrity included bans on one-on-one solicitations of parties in pending cases, the required disclosure of contributions and public financing of judicial elections.

But Michael Wolff, a former chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, said there was little chance that new restrictions would be adopted if the Supreme Court struck down solicitation bans.

“Judges who get elected know how they got there,” he said. “They know how they can stay there. And I’m not sure they’re ready for reform.”