How did the Commission address a judicial candidate’s answers to issue questionnaires?

Plain-English summary

A candidate for judicial office asked about answering political-campaign questionnaires. The Commission reviews earlier ethics commentary against pledges about how cases will be decided and discusses court decisions on restrictions on candidates’ speech.

The Commission says it cannot determine the constitutionality of the Alabama Canons. Under its 1994 analysis, a candidate may express a personal opinion on a specific issue if the answer makes clear the candidate will be bound by and follow the law if elected. An expressed intent to disregard precedent is unethical, and the candidate should not answer questions about issues likely to come before the candidate in a judicial role.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, after the Alabama Supreme Court's 1975 adoption of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Subsequent amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Canons and linked opinion before relying on its conclusions.

Common questions

Q: Did the Commission allow a candidate to state a personal view?

A: Yes, if the answer makes clear the candidate will be bound by and follow the law if elected.

Q: Did the Commission decide whether a Canon is constitutional?

A: No. It expressly said that question was outside its authority.

Q: What kinds of answers did it reject?

A: It rejected an intention to disregard precedent and responses about issues likely to come before the candidate as judge.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discusses restrictions on judicial campaign statements and cites federal and state decisions addressing their constitutionality. It does not cite a numbered Alabama Canon provision.

Citations and references

Cases cited in the opinion:

• American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Florida Bar, 744 F. Supp. 1094 (N.D. Fla. 1990); Beshear v. Butt, 733 F. Supp. 1229 (E.D. Ark. 1991); Clark v. Burleigh, 279 Cal. Rptr. 333 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990); J.C.J.C. v. R.J.C.R., 803 S.W.2d 953 (Ky. 1991); Buckley v. Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, 801 F. Supp. 83 (N.D. Ill. 1992); and Stretton v. Disciplinary Board of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 944 F.2d 137 (3d Cir. 1991).

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 95-579: Surplus Campaign Funds
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 95-578: Election Contest

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 94-537
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

94-537
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
December 9, 1994
In response to your request for an advisory opinion from the Judicial Inquiry Commission regarding questionnaires submitted to a candidate for judicial office during a political election campaign, this Commission issues the following answer: “Ethics advisory opinions have addressed the propriety of numerous statements and pledges candidates have proposed to use in the course of a campaign. The general sense of these opinions is that anything that could be interpreted as a pledge that the candidate will take a particular approach in deciding cases or a particular class of cases is prohibited. ... “Most advisory opinions addressing the use of questionnaires in judicial campaigns strongly disapprove of the practice. Thus, judicial candidates have been advised to refuse to respond to questionnaires from political organizations concerning gun control, abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, regulation of condominiums, and the right to work.
. . .
“Generally, candidates for judicial office may neither initiate discussion of specific recent cases nor respond to questions concerning such cases.” J. Shaman, S. Lubet, J. Alfini, Judicial Conduct and Ethics § 11.09 at 330-332 (1990). However, recent court decisions have recognized that ethical provisions prohibiting judicial candidates from discussing all disputed legal or political issues are unconstitutional. American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Florida Bar, 744 F. Supp. 1094 (N.D. Fla 1990). See also Beshear v. Butt, 733 F.Supp. 1229 (E.D. Ark. 1991); Clark v. Burleigh, 279 Cal.Rptr. 333 (Cal.App. 6th Dist. 1990); J.C.J.C. v. R.J.C.R., 803 S.W.2d 953 (Ky. 1991). However, such provisions may be constitutional if the scope of the particular provision prohibiting comment is narrowly construed and limited to statements made on issues that are likely to come before the judicial candidate when sitting as a judge. See Buckley v. Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, 801 F.Supp. 83 (N.D. Ill. 1992); Stretton v. Disciplinary Board of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 944 F.2d 137 (3d Cir. 1991). 94-537 Page 2 This Commission does not have the authority to determine the constitutionality of any provision of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. However, it is the opinion of this commission that a candidate for judicial office may respond to questions seeking the candidate’s opinion on a specific issue where the candidate makes it clear that the candidate is expressing a personal opinion and that the candidate will be bound by the law and will follow the law if elected. An expression of intent to disregard precedent would be unethical. In addition, a candidate should not respond to questions concerning issues that are likely to come before them in their judicial capacity. This advisory opinion has been considered and approved by the entire Commission.