Supreme Court to Vote on Election-Law Cases

Tiny Vermont, a true blue state, hopes to restore small-town democracy by greatly limiting the role of money in politics. If its new spending caps win before the high court, they could change how campaigns are conducted across the nation.

Meanwhile, Texas, the biggest of the red states, is defending its right to redraw its electoral districts to give its GOP majority more seats in Congress. If its extraordinary mid-decade shift wins in the high court, other states have signaled they will do the same.

The pair of cases will also give strong clues about the court's newest members: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

In the Vermont case, Republicans say that the free-speech principle in the 1st Amendment is fundamental to American politics, and that any government-enforced limit on campaign spending is unconstitutional.

Three years ago, the high court narrowly upheld the McCain-Feingold Act, which barred big contributions to political parties. Then-Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cast a deciding fifth vote to reject the legal challenge led by Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy voted to strike down these contribution limits on 1st Amendment grounds. If Roberts and Alito agree with them, the court could rule that contribution limits, as well as spending limits, are unconstitutional.

But the Vermont case is driven by liberal reformers who hope the high court will reconsider its 30-year-old ruling in Buckley vs. Valeo. Then, the justices set a confusing, two-part rule that has been law ever since. First, they said the government could limit contributions to candidates on the theory that it would look corrupt if a politician took a huge sum from a wealthy donor. However, they also said candidates had a free-speech right to spend unlimited sums.

Since then, the nation has seen a relentless rise in campaign spending, as well as the emergence of a new generation of enormously wealthy candidates. Last year, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg spent an estimated $80 million of his fortune to secure his reelection, 10 times more than the campaign of his leading Democratic opponent. In 2001, Bloomberg, a billionaire, spent $75 million to narrowly win the mayor's office.