holding statements of party affiliation do not refer to subject relevant to judicial qualification and therefore are not protected by First Amendment
How later courts described this case
- holding statements of party affiliation do not refer to subject relevant to judicial qualification and therefore are not protected by First Amendment
- "[A] publisher of what the Supreme Court has termed a `calculated falsehood' ... enjoys no constitutional protection." (Citations omitted)
- concluding judge violated prohibition on stating party affiliation by stating past affiliation
- upheld sanctioning judge for campaign statements that included, in a nonpartisan race, statements clearly intended to indicate the candidate’s long-time affiliation with a particular political party
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Andersen, J.
(concurring) — I concur with Justice Dore's opinion except in one respect; I would not reach the issue of Judge Kaiser's constitutional free speech rights. This is because Judge Kaiser's statement that "My opponent . . . has received the majority of his financial contributions from drunk driving defense attorneys" is false, and in this context is not entitled to constitutional protection. See CJC Canon 7B(l)(c); In re Donohoe, 90 Wn.2d 173, 181-84 , 580 P.2d 1093 (1978); In re Baker, 218 Kan. 209 , 542 P.2d 701 (1975). "A reviewing court should not pass on constitutional issues unless absolutely necessary to the determination of the case." State v. Hall, 95 Wn.2d 536, 539 , 627 P.2d 101 (1981).