May an Alabama judge campaign for a spouse running for nonjudicial office?

Plain-English summary

The judge's spouse was running for city council in a nonpartisan municipal election. The judge planned to solicit votes, attend campaign gatherings, and display or wear campaign merchandise, but was not on the principal campaign committee and would not actively solicit funds.

The Commission says Canon 7A(1) makes campaign activity for a nonjudicial candidate undesirable, but does not prohibit it outright. It extends its earlier reasoning about a judge appearing in a family member's campaign photo: the public expects a spouse's support, provided the judge's title or office is not used in the campaign activity. It modifies Advisory Opinion 82-142 on participation in a close family member's campaign, while stating that Opinion 18-937 had overruled the separate photo advice in Opinion 82-143.

On these facts, the judge may solicit votes, including door knocking; attend meet and greets or receptions that may be fundraisers without personally soliciting funds; and wear or display campaign merchandise. The judge must not be identified as a judge, show an indicium of judicial office, or otherwise implicate the office while doing so.

The opinion prohibits soliciting votes from lawyers or litigants who appear or likely will appear before the judge. It also says the judge should refrain from campaign items or photographs in chambers, courtrooms, and other courthouse areas. The Commission stresses that its answer creates no general family exception to Canon 7; it rests on the spouse relationship and the specific activity described.

In practice

The Commission distinguishes ordinary support for a spouse from campaign conduct that would appear to bring political influence into judicial decisions or use judicial prestige for the spouse's benefit. Its answer addresses the judge's proposed activities and identifies vote solicitation from court participants and campaign displays at the courthouse as beyond those limits.

Common questions

Q: May the judge attend a campaign reception that raises funds?

A: Yes, on these facts, even if the reception is considered a fundraiser, so long as the judge does not personally solicit funds for the spouse.

Q: May the judge ask attorneys appearing before the judge for votes?

A: No. The opinion prohibits soliciting votes from lawyers or litigants who appear or are likely to appear before the judge.

Q: May campaign buttons or photographs be displayed in chambers?

A: The Commission says the judge should refrain from wearing or displaying campaign merchandise or photographs in chambers, courtrooms, or other courthouse areas.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Alabama Canon 7 and 7A(1), which address political activity inappropriate to judicial office, alongside Canon 2C's ban on lending judicial prestige to another's private interests. It also discusses Canons 1, 2, and 3A(1) in explaining why campaign activity must not appear to influence judicial decisions.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canons 1, 2, 2C, 3A(1), 7, and 7A(1).

Statutes:

• Alabama Code § 11-46-3, on the nonpartisan municipal election described in the facts.

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Advisory Opinions 82-142 and 82-143, earlier family-campaign advice addressed by this opinion.
• Alabama JIC Advisory Opinion 18-937, concerning a judge's photo in a family member's campaign materials.
• Massachusetts Advisory Opinion 99-16 and Oklahoma Advisory Opinion 2000-6, cited on a spouse's appearance in campaign materials.

See also

• IL Judicial Ethics Op. 1996-12: Spouse's Sheriff Campaign Dinner
• IL Judicial Ethics Op. 2003-06: Spouse's Nominating Petition

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 25-968

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: JUNE 12, 2025 ADVISORY OPINION 25-968
POLITICAL ACTIVITY:
SPOUSE’S CAMPAIGN FOR NON-
JUDICIAL OFFICE
ISSUE
May a judge engage in political
activity in support of his or her
spouse, who is a candidate for non-
judicial office?
Answer: Yes, subject to certain
limitations, though such conduct is
generally undesirable.
FACTS
A judge’s spouse is a candidate for
city council in a non-partisan
municipal election. See Ala. Code §
11-46-3 (2008) (providing that
members of a municipality’s
governing body in municipalities of
less than 300,000 people shall be by
nonpartisan ballot). The judge is not
a member of the spouse’s principal
campaign committee and will have no
active involvement in the solicitation
of funds for the spouse’s campaign.
The judge does anticipate, however,
participating in campaigning on
behalf of the judge’s spouse by
soliciting votes, attending meet-and-
greets and other receptions, some of
which are fundraising events, and
displaying or wearing campaign
merchandise (e.g., t-shirts, buttons,
etc.)
DISCUSSION
Canon 7 provides, “A judge or a
judicial candidate shall refrain from
political activity inappropriate to
judicial office.” Regarding political
activity on behalf of another, Canon
7A(1) provides:
A judge 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 campaign activities in
connection with a political
candidate other than a
candidate for a judicial office
and not be involved in political
fund solicitations other than
for himself or herself.
However, so long as judges are
subject to nomination and
election as candidates of a
political party, it is realized
that a judge 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 indirectly involved
in the internal workings or
campaign activities of a
political organization, it is
imperative that he or she at all
ADVISORY OPINION 25-968
PAGE 2
times conduct himself or
herself in such 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 other words,
judges in Alabama are not strictly
prohibited from engaging in
campaign activities on behalf of
another candidate, even if for non-
judicial office. Rather, a judge must
ensure, if he or she chooses to engage
in such activities, that he or she must
do so in a manner that does not allow
even an appearance that a judicial
decision or the judicial process might
be influenced by political influences.
Cf. Canon 3A(1) (“[A judge] should
be unswayed by partisan interests,
public clamor, or fear of criticism.”)
In Advisory Opinion 82-142, the
Commission addressed whether a
judge may “actively participate” in a
campaign in which the judge’s
“immediate kin” was a candidate. The
Commission advised that such
activity on behalf of a candidate for
non-judicial office was undesirable
pursuant to Canon 7A(1) and that the
Canons did not contain or recognize
an exception for family members who
are candidates. The Commission also
based this advice on Canon 2C’s
prohibition against allowing others to
convey the impression that they are in
a special position to influence the
judge.
In Advisory Opinion 82-143, the
Commission provided the exact same
advice regarding whether a judge may
allow his picture to be used in the
campaign of the judge’s “immediate
kin.” The Commission has since,
however, overruled that opinion.
Advisory Opinion 18-937. In
Advisory Opinion 18-937, the
Commission recognized that a
majority of other jurisdictions
advised that allowing the use of a
photo that included the judge in a
family member’s campaign materials
was not a violation of the Canons as
long as the judge is not identified as
a judge and the judge’s office is not
otherwise implicated. The
Commission stated in that opinion,
“Other states convincingly reason
that a judge does not give up his/her
place in the family when taking on the
judicial robe. The judge remains a
mother, father, brother, sister, wife,
husband, etc. despite his/her judicial
office.” Id.
The Commission’s advice in
Advisory Opinion 18-937, however,
was limited only to the use of the
judge’s photo in a family member’s
campaign materials. That opinion
does not address a judge’s
participation in other campaign
activities on behalf of a family
member who is a candidate for a non-
judicial office. Thus, while that
opinion overrules Advisory Opinion
82-143, it does not overrule Advisory
Opinion 82-142. In reconsidering
Advisory Opinion 82-142 and in light
of the Commission’s reasoning in
Advisory Opinion 18-937, it is the
ADVISORY OPINION 25-968
PAGE 3
opinion of the Commission that
Advisory Opinion 82-142 should be
modified.
In an opinion addressing whether
a judge may appear in a family
member’s campaign materials, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court Committee on Judicial Ethics
reasoned:
Arguably, any such
participation or appearance
might be perceived as a
prohibited public endorsement
of the candidate. However,
here we believe the Canons
must be viewed with some
degree of realism and common
sense. Obviously, the public
would perceive that one spouse
would support the efforts of the
other in this type of endeavor.
What will offend Canons 2 and
7 is activity that crosses the
line from acceptable, and,
indeed, expected, familial
support to the impermissible
trading on the prestige of the
judicial office.
Massachusetts Advisory Opinion 99-

16. As the Oklahoma Judicial Ethics
    Advisory Panel observed in an
    opinion addressing that same issue:
    The public will surely assume
    that the judge supports his [or
    her spouse’s] candidacy.
    Voters who know the judge
    may be influenced by his
    position, but they would have
    that information whether or not
    the judge appeared in the
    family photograph. Voters who
    do not know the judge will
    receive no clue as to his
    position from the photograph.
    Oklahoma Advisory Opinion 2000-6.
    This expectation does not depend on
    whether the judge is only an active or
    passive participant in the family
    member’s campaign. Thus, this
    reasoning rationally extends beyond
    simply allowing a close family
    member to include a photograph
    containing the judge in his or her
    campaign materials to other types of
    political activity on behalf of that
    same family member, and undercuts
    any appearance that the judge is
    lending the prestige of his or her
    office to the family member or other
    impropriety, particularly where there
    is no indicia of the judge’s judicial
    office while the judge engages in
    these activities.
    It is the opinion of the
    Commission that, although such
    conduct remains undesirable under
    the terms of Canon 7, a judge is not
    strictly prohibited from soliciting
    votes, including in a door-knocking
    campaign, accompanying his or her
    spouse to meet-and-greets and other
    receptions, even ones that might be
    considered fundraisers as long as the
    judge does not personally engage in
    any solicitation of funds on behalf of
    the candidate, or by displaying or
    wearing campaign merchandise such
    as t-shirts or campaign buttons “so
    long as the judge is not identified as
    a judge, no indicia of the judge’s
    ADVISORY OPINION 25-968
    PAGE 4
    office are depicted, and his [or] her
    office is not otherwise implicated”
    while engaging in these activities.
    Advisory Opinion 18-937.
    Furthermore, a judge whose
    spouse is a candidate for non-judicial
    office does not lend the prestige of
    his or her office to their spouse in
    violation of Canon 2C by engaging in
    these activities when related to the
    spouse’s campaign for office. As
    explained above, the expectation that
    the judge will support his or her
    spouse because of their spousal
    relationship, lessens any appearance
    that the judge is participating in and
    supporting the spouse’s campaign
    solely because of the judge’s position
    and is attempting to trade on the
    influence that comes with that
    position to benefit the judge’s spouse.
    Nonetheless, there are some limits on
    the judge’s participation.
    Canon 7 prohibits political
    activities that are “inappropriate to
    judicial office.” The Commission has
    defined such activities in the context
    of the Canon’s two paramount
    commands: that “[a] judge should
    uphold the integrity and
    independence of the judiciary,”
    Canon 1, and “[a] judge should avoid
    impropriety and the appearance of
    impropriety in all his [or her]
    activities,” Canon 2. Advisory
    Opinion 78-39. Canon 7 ensures this
    by emphasizing that if a judge
    engages in undesirable political
    activities, “it is imperative that he or
    she at all times conduct himself or
    herself in such 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.” Canon 7A(1). Of course,
    whether a specific activity would be
    considered “inappropriate” depends
    on the facts of each particular case.
    Advisory Opinion 78-39.
    Under the facts presented in this
    opinion, the judge would be
    prohibited from soliciting votes from
    lawyers or litigants that appear before
    him or her or are likely to appear
    before him or her. Additionally, the
    judge should refrain from wearing or
    displaying campaign merchandise or
    photographs in the judge’s chambers,
    courtroom, or in other areas of the
    courthouse. These are examples of
    conduct that are inappropriate under
    Canon 7A(1) because they allow an
    appearance that political
    consideration, entanglements, or
    influences might be involved in the
    judge’s judicial decision-making and
    create an appearance that the judge is
    lending the prestige of the judge’s
    office to advance the private interests
    of the judge’s spouse by advertising
    the judge’s spouse’s candidacy in
    spaces reserved for the performance
    of the judge’s judicial duties.
    This opinion should not be
    construed as creating or recognizing
    an implied “family exception” to the
    undesirability of a judge’s political
    activity. The Commission’s opinion
    recognizes only that a judge’s
    participation in his or her spouse’s
    ADVISORY OPINION 25-968
    PAGE 5
    campaign is not per se “inappropriate
    to judicial office” so as to be
    prohibited by Canon 7 or any other
    Canon based, particularly, on the
    close relationship between a judge
    and his or her spouse and the
    objectively sensible expectation that
    a judge would support his or her
    spouse based solely on that
    relationship. The same can not be said
    of other, more distant familial
    relationships.
    REFERENCES
    Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics
    2C, 3A(1), 7, 7A(1).
    Ala. Code § 11-46-3.
    Alabama JIC Advisory Opinions 78-
    39, 82-142, 82-143, 18-937.
    Massachusetts Advisory Opinion 99-
    16.
    Oklahoma Advisory Opinion 2000-6.
    This opinion is advisory only and is
    based on the specific facts and
    questions submitted by the judge who
    requested the opinion pursuant to
    Rule 18 of the Alabama Rules of
    Procedure of the Judicial Inquiry
    Commission. For further
    information, you may contact the
    Judicial Inquiry Commission, P.O.
    Box 303400, Montgomery, Alabama
    36130-3400; tel.: (334) 242-4089;
    email: [email protected].