How did Mississippi's judicial election committee treat campaign signs with partial or missing statutory disclosures?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2022. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Committee examined a county court candidate's yard signs and push card under Mississippi Code Annotated section 23-15-1025. Some materials said they were approved by the candidate or paid for and approved by his campaign committee. Other signs carried none of the disclosures required by the statute.
Following earlier Special Committee opinions, it concluded that the materials with partial disclosures did not constitute an unethical or unfair campaign practice under Canon 5. It expressly left open whether partial disclosures could lead to criminal prosecution or Commission on Judicial Performance action, and encouraged disclosure of all information the statute requires.
The signs with no required disclosure were a clear statutory violation. The Committee directed the candidate to cease distributing them and to take down or correct existing signs within ten days of the opinion. It said failure to comply would prompt a public reissue under his name and a referral to the Commission on Judicial Performance.
In practice
For the materials addressed, the Committee drew a distinction between partial disclosures treated under its prior Canon 5 opinions and signs lacking any required disclosure. Its ten-day correction direction applied to the latter signs.
Common questions
Q: Did a partial disclosure on the candidate's campaign materials violate Canon 5 in this opinion?
A: The Committee concluded that the identified partial disclosures did not constitute an unethical or unfair campaign practice under Canon 5, following earlier Special Committee opinions.
Q: Did the Committee decide whether partial disclosures could trigger other proceedings?
A: No. It expressly declined to opine on possible criminal prosecution or action by the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Q: What did the Committee require for signs with no statutory disclosure?
A: It directed the candidate to stop distributing those signs and take them down or correct them within ten days of the opinion.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Mississippi Code Annotated section 23-15-1025, which specifies identifying language on judicial campaign materials, and discusses Canon 5 of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct. It also cites section 23-15-897 and Special Committee Opinions 2018-01, 2018-25, 2018-27, 2020-01 and 2020-03.
Citations and references
Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 5.
Statutes: Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 23-15-1025 and 23-15-897.
Other opinions cited: Special Committee Opinions 2018-01, 2018-25, 2018-27, 2020-01 and 2020-03.
See also
- MS Judicial Opinion 2022-04: Judge Title and Campaign Disclosures
- MS Judicial Opinion 2022-06: Uncorrected Campaign Signs
Source
- Landing page: Judicial Election Oversight Committee opinions
- Original PDF: Public Opinion No. 2022-05
- Archived official PDF: reviewable capture
Original opinion text
Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2022. 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