8TH Cir Ruling gives judicial candidates more political leeway ST. PAUL (AP) - Minnesota's judicial campaigns could become much more political after a US Court of Appeals ruling striking down candidate restrictions on party association and fund-raising. Republican Party of Minnesota et al v. White. (White IV 8-2-2005) the divided en banc Eighth Circuit upheld the right of Attorney and supreme Court candidate Greg Wersal to engage in partisan activities and to solicit campaign contributions while stating policy positions likely to come before the court. "Today, we find that the partisan-activities and solicitation clauses also violate the First Amendment.Accordingly, we reverse the district court and remand the case with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor (the Republican party)." Attorney Wersals case had gone all the way to the US Supreme Court in 2002,Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), when party and Wersal persuaded the SCOTUS to find rules that barred judicial candidates from talking about legal and political issues during campaigns unconsitutional. On the cases' first remand from SCOTUS the 8th Cir. again affirmed rulings upholding on the "solicitation" clause and remanded for further consideration in light of White of the "partisan-activities clause" to determine whether the rule was unconstitutionally applied to White (Canon 5A(1) and 5B(1), the partisan-activities clause, and B(2), the solicitation clause,). Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 361 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2004) (vacated).Wersal has been a state Supreme Court candidate and has argued the batch of rules prevent the public from making informed decisions in judicial elections. His opponents have said the restrictions were meant to ensure impartiality of judges and minimize politics in their decisions. The Missouri Bar had joined those defending the ethics rules.