We read:
"The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that state ethics rules that bar public officials from voting on matters because of a conflict of interest do not violate free-speech rights.
In a decision that highlighted the nation's history of preventing officials from participating because of personal conflicts, the justices reversed a Nevada Supreme Court decision that said voting in council meetings or other legislative arenas was protected by the First Amendment."
Source
Conflict of interest rules are probably a good thing but voting would seem to be a form of speech.
This is not a violation of free speech. It is the same as a judge recusing themselves for possible bias. I'm with Scalia on this:
ReplyDeleteScalia said that when a public official votes, "he does so not as an individual but as a political representative engaged in the legislative process. Acting in that capacity, his vote is not his own speech but a mechanical function of government."
Right. This has nothing to do with how they cast their individual votes in local/state/national elections, because that would most definitely be a 1st Amendment issue. This is only for when they are voting on policy on behalf of their constituents.
ReplyDelete"but voting would seem to be a form of speech."
ReplyDeleteIf that's the case, what act (is not) a form of free speech?