In the case of Clements, Governor of Texas, et al. v. Fashing et al., 1981, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a provision in the Texas Constitution violated the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. The provision in question required any state official who announced their candidacy for another office to automatically resign from their current position if there were more than one year left in their term (known as "resign-to-run" laws). The plaintiffs argued that this law infringed on their rights to free speech and equal protection under law by discouraging them from running for other offices while still serving out their terms. However, after deliberation, the court ruled against them by a vote of 6-3. It held that these restrictions did not violate either freedom of speech or equal protection principles because they served legitimate state interests such as preventing officials from neglecting duties due to campaigning and avoiding potential conflicts between different offices.

In the dissenting opinion for Clements v. Fashing, Justice Brennan argued that the Texas constitutional provision and statutes in question violated both the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by imposing an unconstitutional burden on officeholders' rights to run for election and citizens' rights to vote for candidates of their choice. He believed that these laws were not narrowly tailored enough to serve a compelling state interest, as they forced certain incumbent judges who wished to run for other offices either resign or forfeit their candidacy before even knowing if they would be successful in their new campaign. This could potentially discourage qualified individuals from running due to fear of losing their current position without guarantee of gaining another one, thus limiting voters’ choices at polls.