ABSTRACT This article discusses the US Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar and its potential implications for judicial candidate speech and judicial elections. Based in part on a survey of cases involving restrictions on judicial candidate speech decided before and after Williams-Yulee, the article argues that Williams-Yulee effectively overruled the Court’s earlier decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, by weakening the strict scrutiny test that White applied to judicial candidate speech regulations. Specifically, Williams-Yulee weakened White’s version of strict scrutiny by removing the demand that the government demonstrate the effectiveness of its speech-regulating policies in achieving its goals, and by embracing a more permissive form of inclusivity analysis. This weaker version of strict scrutiny could facilitate government interference in the public education process that occurs during judicial elections, which is a process that affects citizens’ propensities to participate in elections, and their ability to make informed judgments about whom they want to put on the bench.

中文翻译：

---

理解Williams-Yulee诉Florida Bar及其在司法选举中对言论自由的影响

摘要本文讨论了美国最高法院2015年在Williams-Yulee诉Florida Bar案中的判决，及其对司法候选人的演讲和司法选举的潜在影响。该文章部分基于对涉及威廉姆斯-尤勒前后裁决的司法候选人讲话限制的案件的调查，文章认为威廉姆斯-尤勒通过削弱严格的审查标准，有效地推翻了法院在明尼苏达州诉怀特共和党的早期裁决。怀特适用于司法候选人的演讲规则。具体而言，威廉姆斯-尤里（Williams-Yulee）削弱了怀特（White）对严格审查的看法，它消除了对政府证明其言论调控政策在实现其目标方面的有效性的要求，并接受了一种更为宽容的包容性分析。