Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Could an Illinois judicial candidate answer questionnaires about controversial moral, legal or political issues?

Short answer Yes. The Committee allowed responses that stated views but did not commit, or appear to commit, the candidate to decide likely cases or issues in a particular way.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
2021

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2021. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The Committee considered candidate questionnaires seeking views on issues such as abortion and gun control. It said judicial candidates could answer questions from media, advocacy or public interest groups about contested moral, legal and political issues.

The opinion distinguished stating a view from a commitment, or apparent commitment, to decide a likely case or issue a particular way. It applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 67A(3)(d)(1) and discussed Republican Party of Minnesota v. White and Bauer v. Shepard on protected campaign speech. It also noted that a questionnaire response could be portrayed or interpreted in a way that suggested prejudgment.

Currency note

The Committee’s page states that this opinion interprets the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded on January 1, 2023. It does not assess whether the 2023 Code changes the analysis. Verify the current Code before relying on it.

In practice

The opinion allowed candidates to express views in questionnaire responses while applying the former Code’s ban on commitments to decide likely matters a particular way.

Common questions

Q: Did the Code categorically prohibit issue questionnaires?

A: No. The Committee said a candidate could respond if the response stayed within the Code’s commitment restriction.

Q: Would a general disclaimer excuse a prohibited commitment?

A: No. The opinion said a disclaimer by the candidate or organization was insufficient to excuse a Code violation.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 67A(3)(a) and (d)(1), discussed the candidates’ speech rights in White and Bauer, and cited earlier IJEC Opinions 94-05 and 94-17.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rule 67A(3)(a), (d)(1).
  • Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002); Bauer v. Shepard, 620 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2010).
  • IJEC Opinions 94-05 and 94-17.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2021. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace