May a judge and judicial candidate work on a county campaign committee for a nonjudicial statewide candidate?

Plain-English summary

A part-time municipal judge running for another judicial office considered a county steering role for a nonjudicial statewide candidate. The proposed work included identifying prospective donors and volunteers, organizing fundraising, making calls, and hosting the candidate. The Commission strongly discouraged committee service but did not absolutely prohibit it.

The opinion said submitting names and helping organize fundraising were also strongly discouraged, but could be undertaken in an individual capacity without identification as a judge. It warned against solicitation of lawyers or litigants who appeared in the current court or the court the judge sought to join.

Hosting the candidate and making campaign calls where the judge was identifiable by name or title were impermissible on the facts because they would lend judicial prestige to the candidate. The opinion tied its distinctions to Canon 7A(1)’s concern about apparent political influence on judicial decisions and Canon 2C’s restriction on use of office.

In practice

The opinion separated strongly discouraged committee and organizing activity from prohibited hosting and identifiable calls. Any permitted involvement was conditioned on avoiding use of judicial identity and apparent political entanglement.

Common questions

Q: Was committee membership itself prohibited?

A: No. The Commission strongly discouraged it but said Canon 7A(1) did not impose a categorical bar.

Q: Could the judge help identify donors?

A: That was strongly discouraged but not prohibited if done personally without identification as a judge; the opinion also restricted solicitation of court participants.

Q: Could the judge host the candidate?

A: No. The Commission said that would lend judicial prestige to the candidate.

Background and rules framework

Canon 7A(1) addresses political work by judges and judicial candidates; Canon 2C limits using judicial prestige for another person’s private interests.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canons 2C and 7A(1)

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinion 93-493, a county committee for a nonjudicial candidate
• Alabama Advisory Opinion 78-39, political fundraising involving court participants

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 06-868: Referee Formerly at Legal Aid
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 06-870: Judge on a Community Service Commission

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 06-869

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: JUNE 12, 2006 ADVISORY OPINION 06-869
SERVICE ON ACOUNTY COMMITTEE FOR A
CANDIDATE FOR NON-JUDICIAL OFFICE
ISSUE
Maya judge or a candidate for judicial office
serve on a county committee for a candidate for
election to a non-judicial statewide office?
Answer: Suchactivity isstronglydiscouraged,
and some ofthe specific conduct proposed is not
permitted.
FACTS
A part-time municipal judge who is also a
candidate for a local judicial office has been
asked to serve on the county campaign steering
committee for a candidate for election to a non­
judicial officeelected statewide. Service onthe
steering committee would include submitting
names to another committee for possible cam­
paign donors and volunteer workers, helpingto
organizefund-raising events, making telephone
calls on behalfof the candidate, and serving as
a host to the candidate upon the candidate's
visit to the county.
DISCUSSION
The Commission has long recognized that
Canon 7 of the Alabama Canons of Judicial
Ethics governing political activity of Alabama
judgesstronglydiscourages politicalactivityon
behalfofcandidates for non-judicial office. See,
Advisory Opinions 78-39, 84-209, 86-251, 93-493
and 97-676. These opinions reference Canon
7A(l), which provides the following:
Ajudge or a candidate for election to a
judicial office shall endeavor at all
times to refrain from political activities
inappropriate to the judicial office that
he or she holds or seeks. It is desirable
that a judge or a candidate for election
to judicial office endeavor not to be
involved in the internal workings of
political organizations, engage in cam­
paign activities in connection with a
political candidate other than a candi­
date for a judicial office and not be
involved in political fund solicitations
other than for himself or herself.
However, solongasjudges are subject
to nomination and election as candi­
dates ofa political party, it is realized
that ajudge or a candidate for election
to a judicial office cannot divorce
himself or herself completely from
political organizations and campaign
activities which, indirectly or
directly, may be involved in his or her
election or re-election. Nevertheless,
should a judge or a candidate for a
judicial position be directly or indi­
rectly involved in the internal work­
ings or campaign activities ofa politi­
cal organization, it is imperative that
he or she at all times conduct himself
or herself in a manner as to prevent
anypolitical considerations, entangle­
ments, orinfluences from everbecom­
ing involved in or from ever appear­
ing to be involved in anyjudicial deci­
sion or in the judicial process.
This canon stops short of prohibiting all
activity on behalf of a candidate for non­
judicial statewide office, statingthat political
involvement with the campaigns of non­
judicial candidates is discouraged, but recog­
nizing that there may be instances where
such activity may be engaged in out ofneces­
sity due to the nature ofthe political process.
However, ifsuch conduct is undertaken, this
canon places a heavy burden on the judge/
candidate for judicial office to "conduct him­
self or herself in a manner as to prevent any
political considerations, entanglements, or
influences from ever becoming involved in or
from ever appearing to be involved in any
judicial decision or in the judicial process"
(emphasis added). In addition, the judge or
judicial candidate must endeavor at all times
to refrain from specific political activities
that are inappropriate to the judicial office
that he or she holds or seeks.
ADVISORY OPINION 06-869
PAGE 2
In determining whether an activity is inap­
propriate to judicial office, other provisions
in the canons may be instructive. The Com­
mission finds a provision in Canon 2C to be
particularly pertinent to some ofthe specific
activities proposed by the inquiring judge.
Canon 2C includes a requirement that ajudge
"should not lend the prestige of his office to
advance the private interests of others; nor
should he conveyor permit others to convey
the impression that they are in a special
position to influence him."
The Commission has previously recognized
that Canon 7A(l) does not prohibit service on
a county committee for a candidate for non­
judicial statewide office per se, but that it
strongly discourages this conduct, and that
specific activities in conjunction with such
service may be prohibited. Advisory Opinion
93-493.
It is the opinion of the Commission that
Canon7A(l) strongly discourages butdoes not
prohibit the inquiring judge from serving on
the county committee for a candidate for non­
judicial statewide office. However, some of
the specific activities proposed to be involved
in such service are not permitted.
The Commissionfinds that submitting names
of possible campaign donors and volunteer
workers to another committee is strongly
discouraged under Canon 7 but not prohib­
ited. The Commission also finds that helping
to organize fund-raising events is strongly
discouraged but not prohibited. However, if
the judge chooses to engage in these two
activities, he should do so in his individual
capacity, and not identify himself or allow
himself to be identified as a judge. In addi­
tion, the judge should not solicit funds from
lawyers or litigants appearing before either
the judge's current court or the court on
which he seeks to sit.
In Advisory Opinion 84-209, the Commission
wrote that if a judge chose to serve on an
advisory committee for a candidate for the
United States Senate, he should do so in his
individual capacity, and not identify himself
or allow himself to be identified as a judge.
The Commission reaffirmed this in Advisory
Opinion 93-493, which involved proposed
service ona countycommitteefor the election
of a gubernatorial candidate. In Advisory
Opinion 78-39, the Commission concluded
that, while fund solicitation on behalf of a
non-judicial candidate is not generally
prohibited but only strongly discouraged, it
would be virtually impossible to solicit funds
from lawyersorlitigants appearing before the
judge's court without violating the
requirement to conduct oneself"in a manner
at all times as to prevent any political
considerations, entanglements or influences
from ... ever appearing to be involved in any
judicial decision or in the judicial process."
The Commission is of the opinion that the
judge could not serve as a host to the candi­
date upon the candidate's visit to the county
without lending the prestige of his office to
the candidate. The Commission is also ofthe
opinion, under the facts presented, that the
inquiring judge would not be able to make
telephone calls on behalf ofthe candidate in
which the judge is identified by either name
or title without lending the prestige of his
office to the endeavor. Thus, the Commission
finds that these two activities are not permit­
ted by the canons ofjudicial ethics. (A judge
may under most circumstances privately
advise or assist a non-judicial candidate. See
Advisory Opinion 78-39.)
Finally, if the judge chooses to serve on the
county committee at issue, he should, before
engaging in any other specific activity, con­
sider whether the activity would create an
appearance that political entanglements or
influences are or will be involved in any
judicial decision or in the judicial process,
and whether the activity is inappropriate to
the judicial office held or sought.
REFERENCES
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons
2C and 7A(l).
ADVISORY OPINION 06-869
PAGE 3
Advisory Opinions 78-39, 84-209, 86-251, 93-493,
and 97-676.
This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
thejudge whorequested the opinion pursuant
to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Judicial Inquiry Commission. For further
information, you may contact the Judicial
Inquiry Commission, P. O. Box303400, Mont­
gomery, Alabama 36130-3400; tel.: (334) 242­
4089; fax: (334) 353-4043; E-mail:
[email protected].