Last Friday, the West Virginia State Supreme Court unanimously rejected a judicial candidate's appeal for the release of trigger funds. The state's pilot progam in judicial public financing provides and initial grant allows for additional public funds to be disbursed to a participating candidate if they face a privately financed candidate who spends at a certain level.

Based on the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett and Citizens United v. FEC, the West Virginia high court ruled that the "matching fund provision places a "substantial burden on the unfettered political speech of the privately financed candidates" and could not withstand a challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court."

The case was brought by the Brennan Center for Justice, which respresented Republican judicial candidate Allen Loughry. Lawyer Adam Skaggs argued that "while the U.S. Supreme Court had overturned matching fund provisions in legislative and executive branch elections as being unconstitutional, the court has recognized there is a compelling interest to assure fair and impartial judicial elections." Unfortunately, while the ruling acknowledged the importance of impartiality and integrity in judicial elections, the justices stated that the matching fund provisions were "unconstitutional because they place a substantial burden on privately financed candidates' free speech rights in violation of the First Amendment."