the Commission in support of our endorsement clause is the State’s interest in promoting impartiality and the appearance of impartiality within the judiciary. As previously noted, without deciding whether impartiality or its appearance was a compelling state interest, the Court in White identified three possible variants of what is often meant by impartiality. Of the three, the one identified in White that appears to us most likely to rise to the level of a compelling state interest is the Court’s conception of impartiality that envisions a lack of bias for or against either party to a proceeding. See White, 536 U.S. at 775-76, 122 S.Ct. 2528. Since White, at least one other court has recognized this meaning of impartiality as a compelling state interest. See Dunleavy, 838 A.2d at 351 (<HOLDING>). Although the judicial conduct provision at
recognizing that the state has a compelling interest in preserving judicial impartiality and the appearance of impartiality defined in white as a lack of bias for or against either party to a proceeding recognizing and protecting the interest of municipality in preserving nonpartisan police force and appearance thereof recognizing the compelling interest in highway safety holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling holding that party waived special appearance