is so ordered. 1 . At the time of the relevant events in this case, the disclosure and recusal provisions of the Ethics in Government Law were codified at Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281.501 (2003). They were recodified without relevant change in 2007 at § 281A.420, and all citations are to that version. The Nevada Legislature further amended the statute in 2009, see Nev. Stats., ch. 257, § 9.5, p. 1057, but those changes are not relevant here. 2 . The House first achieved a quorum on April 1, 1789, 1 Annals of Cong. 96, and it adopted rules governing its procedures on April 7, 1789, see id., at 98-99. 3 . We have held that restrictions on judges’ speech during elections are a different matter. See Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 788, 122 S. Ct. 2528, 153 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2002) (<HOLDING>). 4 . A number of States enacted early judicial
holding that primary election ballot filing fee violated fourteenth amendment and noting that the primary election may be more crucial than the general election in certain parts of texas holding that limits on contributions to political committees which advocate the views and candidacies of a number of candidates induce no greater first amendment scrutiny than limits on contributions to an individual candidate holding that it violated the first amendment to prohibit announcement of views on disputed legal and political issues by candidates for judicial election holding that regulations forcing mushroom producers to fund generic advertising violated the first amendment even though they did not compel the expression of political or ideological views holding that ohio election law forbidding all anonymous political leafletting violated the first amendment but noting that the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct