法官競選活動言論自由之等議-以美國聯邦最南法院 Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar 案為探討核心

Issues on Judicial Campaign Speech- Focusing on Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar Case

美國聯邦最高法院在最近之Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar案判決將深刻影響法官競選活動之募集競選經費實務，並對限制該競選活動其他類型言論自由之合憲性產生巨大之不確定性，Williams-Yulee案之立論：法官並非政治人物，法官選舉與其他選舉應為差別對待，與先前之 Republican Party of Minnesota v. White案可謂針鋒相對，再加上其各自之不同意見，可謂百家爭鳴，Williams-Yulee案表面上看來涉及法官選舉競選經費募集之問題，被認為可能威脅到司法公正之形象，進而危及公眾對於司法的信賴，但更深層的問題恐怕是長期以來美國司法體糸採取法官民選制度之爭議，限制法官競選活動言論自由之合憲性議題可謂錯綜複雜，我國法官之產生雖非如同美國多數州一樣採取選舉制度，然主張我國法官應採取民選制度之呼聲並非沒有，又或質疑法官非民選其判決正當性，況Williams-Yulee案之意涵並不局限於法官競選募集競選經費之問題還可能延伸到法官言論自由之相關議題，故對於該案之探討應可提供我們若干借鏡。

The U. S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar will have a significant effect in judicial election campaigns and will create great uncertainty as to the constitutionality of other restrictions of speech by candidates for elected judicial offices. The court’s emphatic declaration that judges are not politicians is in clear tension with its earlier decisions in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White. Judicial elections pose unique constitutional difficulties by creating an environment ripe for conflict between two vital interest: free speech and the integrity of the judicial branch. The constitutionality of restrictions on judicial campaign speech is complex. Federalism, freedom of speech, due process, separation of powers are all at play