Could an appellate judge join parents lobbying for a school-bus seatbelt mandate?

Plain-English summary

A Court of Civil Appeals judge proposed joining a parents' group lobbying for legislation requiring seatbelts on school buses. The judge expected to act chiefly as a concerned parent and anticipated little interference with court duties.

The Commission said Canon 4 allowed activity concerning law and the legal system only when it did not cast doubt on impartiality. Because related issues were likely to come before this appellate judge, the proposed campaign for a particular substantive legal change was impermissible.

The opinion distinguished public-service messages encouraging compliance with existing seatbelt law. It also listed factors for evaluating advocacy groups, including their political role, public prominence, likely court issues, whether they sought procedural or substantive change, the judge's policy role, and fundraising. No single factor necessarily controlled.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, 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 acting as a parent make the lobbying permissible?

A: No. The Commission still found a reasonable impartiality concern given the judge's appellate docket.

Q: Were seatbelt safety messages treated the same as lobbying for a new mandate?

A: No. The opinion distinguished earlier public-service messages promoting compliance with existing law from advocacy to change the law.

Q: Did one listed factor decide every group-membership question?

A: No. The Commission said no one factor or combination was necessarily determinative.

Background and rules framework

Alabama Canon 4 governed judicial participation in law-related speaking, writing, and consultation. The Commission limited such activity where advocacy on substantive law could cast doubt on the judge's capacity to decide issues likely to reach the court.

Citations and references

The opinion cites Alabama Canon 4, Alabama Advisory Opinions 85-244 and 86-257, and California Judges Association Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinion 46.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 85-244: Child Seatbelt Public-Service Message

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 99-737: Newspaper Letter Praising Legislator

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions

• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 99-732

• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: JULY 22, 1999 ADVISORY OPINION 99-732
LOBBYING FOR LEGISLATION
ISSUE
May a judge participate as a member of a
citizens' group that lobbies for legislation
mandating the placement of seat belts on
school buses? Answer: No, such lobbying
would cast doubt on the judge's capacity to
decide impartially issues that come before
him.
FACTS
The judge proposes to participate as a member
ofa citizens' group that lobbies for legislation
mandating the placement of seat belts on
school buses. The judge is a member of the
Court of Civil Appeals. The group is one of
concerned parents, currently without formal
organization. The judge does not anticipate
that participation would entail a time
commitment that would interfere with his
judicial duties. He expects his involvement to
primarily be as a concerned parent, which
may entail some personal lobbying activity.
DISCUSSION
The issue presented is governed primarily by
Canon 4:
A judge may engage in activities to
improve the law, the legal system,
and the administration ofjustice.
A judge, subject to the proper
performance of his jUdicial duties, may
engage may engage in the following
quasi-judicial duties, if in so doing he
does not cast doubt on his capacity to
decide impartially any issue that may
come before him:
A. He may speak, write, teach, and
participate in other activities concerning
the law, the legal system, and the
administration ofjustice.
B. He may appear at a public hearing
before an executive or legislative body or
official and may otherwise consult with
an executive or legislative body or official
on matters concerning the law, the legal
system, and the administration ofjustice.
C. He may serve as a member, officer,
or director of an organization or
governmental agency devoted to the
improvement ofthe law, the legal system,
or the administration ofjustice. He may
assist such an organization in raising
funds and may participate in their
management and investment. He may
make recommendations to public and
private fund-granting agencies on
projects and programs concerning the
law, the legal system, and the
administration ofjustice.
Under Canon 4, a judge may communicate
with members of the legislature concerning
the law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice only if the judge's
activities do not interfere with the proper
performance ofjudicial duties or cast doubt on
the judge's capacity to decide impartially any
issue that may come before him. Judicial
participation in a group that engages in
advocacy toward the adoption, repeal, or
modification of particular substantive laws
creates a danger that the jUdge's ability to act
impartially may be cast in doubt.
Whenever a group engages in advocacy
regarding substantive legal issues,
participation by a judge should be carefully
scrutinized. Factors that should be
considered include: 1) the extent ofthe group's
involvement in political or advocacy
activities, 2) the extent to which the group is
perceived by the public as engaging in such
activities, 3) the size and public prominence of
the organization, 4) whether issues ofconcern
to the group are likely to come before the
judge's court, 5) whether the group is
concerned with procedural or substantive
ADVISORY OPINION 99-732
PAGE 2
changes in the law or its application, 6)
whether the judge would be participating in a
policy-making position, and 7) the fund­
raising activities in which the group will be
engaged. No one or combination of these
factors is necessarily determinative.
illtimately, the question is whether thejudge's
participation is likely to lead to a perception
that the judge's impartiality in administering
the law may be questioned. California Judges
Association Committee on Judicial Ethics,
Opinion No. 46.
The propriety ofthe judge participating in the
particular organization in question in this
case is a very close question. However, in the
opinion of the Commission, a member of the
Court ofCivil Appeals may not participate as
a member of a group that lobbies for
legislation mandating seat belts on school
buses. Because related issues are likely to
come before the judge, such lobbying would
call into question the judge's ability to decide
impartially issues that come before him.
The lobbying activity in this case is
distinguishable from the activity that was in
question in Advisory Opinions 85-244 and 86­

257. In those opinions, the Commission
     advised judges that they could appear in a
     public service announcement encouraging
     parents to use seat belts for their children and
     a seat belt safety program. As the
     Commission observed in those opinions, those
     activities were designed to promote
     compliance with existing law. The activity
     currently proposed seeks to change the law
     through participation in an organization with
     a narrow advocacy function.
     REFERENCES
     Alabama Advisory Opinions 85·244,86-257.
     Alabama Canons ofJudicial Ethics, Canon 4.
     California Judges Association Committee on
     Judicial Ethics, Opinion No. 46.
     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 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the
     Judicial Inquiry Commission. For further
     information, you may contact the Judicial
     Inquiry Commission, 800 South McDonough
     Street, Suite 201, Montgomery, Alabama 36104;
     tel.: (334) 242-4089; fax: (334) 240-3327; e-mail:
     [email protected].