Source: http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/rules/Judicial/canon4.htm
Timestamp: 2015-02-28 05:21:15
Document Index: 115692700

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§1', '§1', '§26', '§10', '§7', '§ 9', '§ 21', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 29']

N.D. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 4 |N.D. Supreme Court| Effective July 1, 2012[Go to Previous Rule.]CANON 4A JUDGE OR CANDIDATE FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN POLITICAL OR CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, OR
(1)	Except as authorized in Rules 4.3(B) and 4.4(B), a judge or judicial candidate* shall not:
(d)	seek, accept, or use an endorsement or letter of support from a political organization;*
(e)	solicit funds for, pay an assessment to or make a contribution to a political organization* or candidate; (f)	purchase tickets for or attend gatherings or other events sponsored by a political organization* or a candidate for legislative or executive office;
(g) publicly identify himself or herself as a candidate of a political organization; (h)	with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of the office;
[1] The state has a compelling interest in maintaining the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, thus enhancing public confidence in the justice system. The independence of the judiciary is necessary to ensure the rule of law. Judicial independence is intended to guarantee much more than impartiality toward litigants. The judiciary acts as a check on the other branches of government and protects the rights enumerated in our Constitution. An independent judiciary is one that is not dominated by or dependent upon the other two branches of government, is not unduly entangled in the political machinery of the other two branches, and is not actuated in its decision-making by the same political policy considerations and interests as the other branches. The compelling state interest of the state in judicial independence and the separation of powers is recognized by several provisions of the North Dakota Constitution,
specifically that the legislative power is vested in the Senate and House of Representatives, N.D. Const. art. III, §1; that the executive power is vested in the governor, N.D. Const. art. V, §1; that the judicial power is vested in the unified court system headed by the supreme court, N.D. Const. art. VI, §1; that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are co-equal branches of government, N.D. Const. art. XI, §26; that a member of the judiciary may not hold a nonjudicial office nor shall any duties be imposed upon him or her which are not judicial, N.D. Const. art. VI, §10; and that a judge's or justice's compensation may not be diminished by the other branches during that judge's or justice's term of office, N.D. Const. art. VI, §§7 and 9.
[2] In order to advance the state's compelling interest, Rule 4.2 imposes restrictions on the political and campaign activities of all sitting judges and all candidates for judicial office, while taking into account the methods of selecting judges and the constitutional provisions governing free speech and expressive association. In all events, a candidate for judicial office should maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office.
[4] Paragraph (A)(1) does not prohibit a candidate for elective judicial office from retaining during candidacy a public office such as county prosecutor, which is not "an office in a political organization."
[5] Paragraphs (A)(1)(b) and (A)(1)(c) prohibit judges and candidates for judicial office from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office or making speeches on behalf of political organizations*, in order to prevent them from misusing the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of others. See, Rule 1.3. These rules do not prohibit candidates from campaigning on their own behalf or from endorsing or opposing candidates for the same judicial office. See Rule 4.3(B). [6] Members of the families of judges or candidates for judicial office are free to engage in political activity of their own, including running for political office. The prohibition in paragraph (A)(1)(b) against publicly endorsing candidates for public office, however, does not include an exception for family members. Accordingly, a judge or candidate for judicial office must not become involved in or publicly associated with a family member's political activity or campaign for public office. To avoid public misunderstanding, moreover, a judge or candidate for judicial office must take, and must require the family member to take, reasonable steps to avoid any implication that the judge or candidate endorses the family member's candidacy or other political activity. For purposes of this Comment, "members of the families of candidates" has the same meaning as "member of the judge's family". See Terminology. [7] Paragraphs (A)(1)(b) and (A)(1)(c) do not prohibit a judge or judicial candidate from privately expressing his or her views on judicial candidates or other candidates for public office.
[8] Judicial candidates are sometimes the subject of false, misleading, or unfair allegations made by opposing candidates, third parties, or the media. For example, false or misleading statements might be made regarding the identity, present position, experience, qualifications, or judicial rulings of a candidate. In other situations, false or misleading allegations may be made that bear upon a candidate's integrity or fitness for judicial office. As long as the candidate does not violate paragraph (A)(1)(h) or (A)(1)(i), the candidate may make a factually accurate public response. In addition, when an independent third party has made unwarranted attacks on a candidate's opponent, the candidate may disavow the attacks, and request the third party to cease and desist.
[9] Paragraph (A)(1)(h) prohibits a candidate for judicial office from making statements that pledge, promise, or commit the candidate regarding cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court. The compelling interests of the state supporting the limited restrictions imposed under paragraph (A)(1)(h) are recognized and supported by several provisions of the North Dakota Constitution, specifically with respect to ensuring the citizens of this state due process of law, N.D. Const. art. I, §§ 9 and 12; equal protection of the law, N.D. Const. art. I, § 21; open courts, N.D. Const. art. I, § 9; and justice without sale, denial, or delay, N.D. Const. art. I, § 9. Further, because of circumstances found in this state, it is necessary to protect those interests by placing the least restrictive limits on the free speech of candidates* and judges possible. North Dakota is a geographically large state with a largely rural, sparse population and a small number of appellate judges and general jurisdiction trial judges. North Dakota also has a very liberal statute providing for a change of judge upon demand, N.D. Cent. Code § 29-15-21. Within a relative short period of time, each of these judges will have been subject to election. Without paragraph (A)(1)(h), it is reasonably foreseeable that on a particular issue every judge in the state could have pledged, promised, or made a commitment that may be considered inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the judge's adjudicative duties. The limitations imposed under paragraph (A)(1)(h) are necessary as disqualification under Rule 2.11 alone may not sufficiently protect the interests described in this comment. See also the limitations imposed under Rule 2.10(B).
[13] Subject to paragraph (A)(1)(i), a judicial candidate is permitted to respond directly to false, misleading, or unfair allegations made against him or her during a campaign, although it is preferable for someone else to respond if the allegations relate to a pending case.
[14] Paragraph (A)(1)(i) prohibits judicial candidates from making comments that might impair the fairness of pending or impending judicial proceedings. This provision does not restrict arguments or statements to the court or jury by a lawyer who is a judicial candidate, or rulings, statements, or instructions by a judge that may appropriately affect the outcome of a matter.
RULE 4.4 Activities of Judicial Candidates for Appointive Judicial Office. A. A judicial candidate* for appointment to judicial office shall not solicit or accept funds, personally or through a committee or otherwise, to support his or her candidacy. B.	A judicial candidate for appointment to judicial office shall not engage in any political activity to secure the appointment except that such persons may:
(1)	communicate with the appointing or confirming authority, including any selection or nominating commission or other agency designated to screen candidates;
(2)	seek support or endorsement for the appointment from organizations that regularly make recommendations for reappointment or appointment to the office, and from individuals to the extent requested or required by those specified in paragraph (B)(1); (3)	provide to those specified in paragraphs (B)(1) and (2) information as to the person's qualifications for the office; and
(4) contact lawyers and others for expressions of support to be submitted to the appointing authority identified in paragraph (B)(1) and may distribute personal and professional information in the form of resumes that describe the person's qualifications for office.
[1] Paragraph (B)(2) provides a limited exception to the restrictions imposed by Rule 4.2(A). Under paragraph (B)(2), candidates seeking reappointment to the same judicial office or appointment to another judicial office may apply for the appointment and seek appropriate support. [2] When seeking support or endorsement, or when communicating directly with an appointing, confirming, or nominating authority, a candidate for appointive judicial office must not make any pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the office. See Rule 4.2(A).
A judicial candidate* shall not directly and personally solicit or accept campaign contributions or directly and personally solicit publicly stated support. A candidate may establish committees of responsible persons to conduct campaigns for the candidate through media advertisements, brochures, mailings, candidate forums and other means not prohibited by law. Such committees may solicit and accept reasonable campaign contributions, manage the expenditure of funds for the candidate's campaign and obtain public statements of support for his or her candidacy. While a candidate may not directly and personally solicit contributions or public statements of support, the candidate may orally solicit contributions or publicly stated support in front of large groups or organizations consisting, for example, of audiences of 25 or more people. The candidate's actual signature or a reproduction of the signature may appear on letters or other printed or electronic materials distributed by the committee which solicit contributions or publicly stated support from individuals or large groups. Solicitations bearing the candidate's signature must direct contributions to be sent to the address of the candidate's campaign committee and not that of the candidate. The candidate must take reasonable measures to ensure the names and responses, or lack thereof, of the recipients of solicitations for contributions will not be disclosed to the candidate. Campaign committees are not prohibited from soliciting and accepting reasonable campaign contributions and public support from lawyers. A candidate's committees may solicit contributions and public support for the candidate's campaign no earlier than one year before an election and no later than 90 days after the last election in which the candidate participates during the election year. COMMENT
[1] This rule seeks to insulate candidates for judicial office from personal contacts with contributors or public supporters that may lead to allegations of bias or lack of impartiality if the contributor or supporter should later appear before the judge. As a result, candidates are prohibited from directly and personally soliciting contributions or publicly stated support. This limitation is intended to minimize the occurrence of direct personal contacts with individual contributors or public supporters. However, because the activity is more removed and less likely to result in specific knowledge about any individual contributions or expressions of public support, a candidate is permitted to affix the candidate's signature, or a reproduction of the signature, to printed or electronic material soliciting contributions or support. While this rule allows a candidate to solicit contributions or publicly stated support from large groups or organizations under certain circumstances, Rule 4.2(A)(1)(d) continues to prohibit a candidate from seeking, accepting, or using an endorsement or letter of support from a political organization. In soliciting contributions or publicly stated support from large groups or organizations, a candidate should limit such activity to audiences of 25 or more people. Solicitation activity involving audiences lesser in number increases the possibility of direct personal contact with individual attendees and risks allegations of bias or lack of impartiality if the attendee should later appear before the judge. This rule permits a candidate, other than a candidate for appointment, to establish campaign committees to solicit and accept public support and reasonable financial contributions. At the start of the campaign, the candidate must instruct his or her campaign committees to solicit or accept only contributions that are reasonable under the circumstances. Though not prohibited, campaign contributions of which a judge has knowledge, made by lawyers or others who appear before the judge, may be relevant to disqualification under Rule 2.11. [2] Campaign committees established under this rule should manage campaign finances responsibly, avoiding deficits that might necessitate post-election fund-raising, to the extent possible.
[3] This rule does not prohibit a candidate from initiating an evaluation by a judicial selection commission or bar association, or, subject to the requirements of this Code, from responding to a request for information from any organization, or from directly and personally soliciting signatures for the candidate's nominating petition. Reference: Minutes of the Judiciary Standards Committee on 08/28/09 and 06/15/10.