Opinion ID: 2807428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: approaches to the endorsement issue

Text: The ABA Model Code, upon which Florida’s Code has been fashioned, is a natural place to start. Indeed, the ABA Model Code contains the identical prohibitory language regarding endorsements as Florida’s Code, but includes in its commentary a “same judicial office” exception, which provides as follows: - 12 - Paragraphs (A)(2) and (A)(3) prohibit judges and judicial candidates from making speeches on behalf of political organizations or publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, respectively, to prevent them from abusing 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 for which they are running. ABA Model Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 4.1, Comment 4 (emphasis added). Accordingly, notwithstanding the prohibitory language of the endorsement ban, pursuant to the “same judicial office” exception of the ABA Model Code, a candidate for judicial office may endorse or oppose another candidate, but only if that candidate is seeking the same judicial office. Among states that utilize merit selection and retention, at least Arizona, Illinois, Maryland, and South Dakota have some form of the “same judicial office” exception. See Ariz. Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 4.1, Comment 4; Ill. Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 7(B)(1)(b)(iv); Md. Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 4.4(c)(1) & Rule 4.4, Comment 4; S.D. Code of Jud. Conduct, Section 5(C)(1)(b)(iii). Several states with competitive elections between multiple candidates also utilize some form of the “same judicial office” exception, including Kansas and Oklahoma. See Kan. Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 4.2(D)(3)(c); Okla. Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 4.1, Comment 4. At least two states go further than the ABA “same judicial office” approach and expressly permit judicial candidates to run for office as one “slate” in order to campaign more effectively. For example, Indiana’s Code of Judicial Conduct— - 13 - which, like Florida’s, prohibits a judge or judicial candidate from publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for any public office—includes the following comment: Although judicial candidates in nonpartisan public elections are prohibited from running on a ticket or slate associated with a political organization, they may group themselves into slates or other alliances to conduct their campaigns more effectively. Candidates who have grouped themselves together are considered to be running for the same judicial office if they satisfy the conditions described in Comment [6] [if several judgeships on the same court are to be filled as a result of the election]. Ind. Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 4.2, Comment 7 (emphasis added). New Mexico’s Code of Judicial Conduct contains a similar provision, which in addition to permitting judicial candidates to campaign as a “slate” also permits candidates to participate in joint fundraising events with other judicial candidates. See N.M. Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 21-402C(2) (“[J]udicial candidates may run for election as part of a slate of judicial candidates and may participate in joint fundraising events with other judicial candidates.”). The “slate” exception broadens the possible types of campaign activity for which candidates may align, allowing them to group together if it enables the candidates, including especially those candidates facing opposition, to “conduct their campaigns more effectively.” Ind. Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule 4.2, Comment 7. However, while the “slate” exception is more permissive than the “same - 14 - judicial office” alternative, it remains more restrictive than the third major approach—the California model. California takes a unique approach to the endorsement issue. Under Canon 5 of California’s Code of Judicial Ethics, both judges and judicial candidates are prohibited from publicly endorsing or publicly opposing only candidates for nonjudicial office. See Cal. Code of Jud. Ethics, Canon 5A(2). Indeed, the Commentary to California’s Code makes clear that judges—including sitting judges not running in an election—are not prohibited from endorsing judicial candidates. Specifically, the Commentary explains as follows: Under this canon, a judge may publicly endorse a candidate for judicial office. Such endorsements are permitted because judicial officers have a special obligation to uphold the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary and are in a unique position to know the qualifications necessary to serve as a competent judicial officer. Cal. Code of Jud. Ethics, Canon 5A, Advisory Comm. Commentary. Accordingly, although judges and judicial candidates in California are prohibited by the state’s Code of Judicial Ethics from endorsing or opposing candidates for nonjudicial offices, such as in state or federal legislative and executive races, they are explicitly permitted to endorse a candidate for judicial office due to their “special obligation to uphold the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary” and their “unique position to know the qualifications necessary to serve as a competent judicial officer.” Id. In this way, - 15 - California has chosen to favor greater speech over more restrictive ethical regulations in balancing the competing interests in impermissibly “lending the prestige of the judicial office” with the special knowledge and obligation of judges to promote the welfare of the judicial branch. The California approach is thus the most permissive of the various alternatives for addressing the endorsement issue.