May a judge publicly support or oppose a sales-tax measure funding a new courthouse and jail?

Plain-English summary

A judge asked about participating in a county bond election on a sales-tax increase for a new courthouse and jail. The Committee treated courthouse funding as a matter concerning administration of justice.

It concluded that the judge could publicly favor, oppose, or remain neutral on the measure. The judge could also join a committee seeking its passage, but Canon 4C (3) limited his involvement in the committee’s fundraising.

Currency note

This opinion predates the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct that took effect July 1, 2009, as stated in JEAC Opinion 2009-04. Later rules and opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on a specific rule.

Common questions

Q: Could the judge publicly oppose the proposed tax?

A: Yes. The Committee allowed a public position for, against, or indifferent to the measure.

Q: Could the judge join a committee promoting it?

A: Yes, while observing the fundraising limits the Committee identified.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied then-current Canons 4A, 4C, 5D, and 4C (3) to a measure concerning courthouse funding and the administration of justice.

Citations and references

• Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 4A, 4C, 5D, and 4C (3).
• In Re Chambliss, 516 So. 2d 506 (Mississippi 1987), cited.
• Matter of Staples, 719 P. 2d 559 (Washington 1986), cited.

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://jddc.arkansas.gov/opinions/opinion-no-94-01/

Original opinion text

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

February 18, 1994

Judge Don Huffman

Chancery Court

Benton County Courthouse

Bentonville, Arkansas

Re: Advisory Opinion 94-01

Dear Judge Huffman:

Your letter of January 21, 1994 asks to what extent you are permitted to participate in an upcoming bond election in which the voters of Benton County will decide whether to increase the sales tax to pay for a new courthouse and jail.

1) A judge is to manage extra-judicial activities so that reasonable doubt is not cast upon judicial impartiality. Canon 4A. A judge may appear at a public hearing and may consult with executive officials on matters concerning the administration of justice. Canon 4C. The prohibition against political activity by judges does not extend to measures involving the legal system or the administration of justice. Canon 5D. In those areas the judge is in a unique position to contribute to public debate and discussion. See Commentary to Canon 4B.

Issues involving courthouses and related funding have traditionally been included within the scope of "the administration of justice." See In Re Chambliss, 516 So. 2d 506 (Mississippi 1987) (judge may participate in bond election when related to the administration of justice); Matter of Staples, 719 P. 2d 559 (Washington 1986) (judge who took a vocal stand on controversial issues involving movement of county seat did not violate judicial ethics). Accordingly, we conclude that the Code does not prohibit you from taking a public stand that is in favor of, opposed to, or indifferent to the proposed sales tax.

2) Likewise we conclude that the Code does not prohibit you from being a member of a committee formed to promote passage of the sales tax. Canon 4C (3) permits you to serve as a member or officer of an organization devoted to the administration of justice. But the Canon also limits your involvement in any fund raising activities of the committee.

Sincerely,

Howard W. Brill

Professor of Law For the Committee