What did Mississippi's judicial election committee do when a candidate did not correct misleading campaign signs after an earlier opinion?
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
Public Opinion 2022-04 had directed a justice court judge running for county court judge to correct campaign materials using the title “Judge” without identifying the office he already held. It also required the statutory disclosures for campaign materials under Mississippi Code section 23-15-1025.
After further complaints and missed correction deadlines, the Committee accepted the candidate's representation that the failure to comply had not been intentional or willful. It nevertheless said the candidate was responsible for campaign committee activity and compliance with election law and the Code.
The Committee then named Justice Court Judge Robert Davis, reprinted an edited version of Opinion 2022-04 with his name, and forwarded Opinion 2022-06 to the Commission on Judicial Performance. The reprinted analysis held that a judicial candidate may use the title “Judge” only when the campaign materials clearly identify the judgeship currently held and do not mislead voters about the office sought.
Common questions
Q: Did the Committee find that the candidate deliberately ignored its prior opinion?
A: No. It accepted his representation that he had not intentionally or willfully failed to comply, while holding him responsible for his campaign's materials.
Q: What action did the Committee take after the materials remained uncorrected?
A: It publicly identified the candidate, reprinted an edited version of Opinion 2022-04, and sent the matter to the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Q: Could the candidate use the title “Judge” in campaign materials?
A: The reprinted analysis allowed that title if the materials clearly identified his current justice court judgeship and did not mislead voters about the county court office he sought.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5A(3)(d)(iii) to a candidate's description of his present judicial position, Canon 5F(9) to the Committee's referral, and Mississippi Code Annotated sections 23-15-1025 and 23-15-897 to campaign material disclosures.
Citations and references
Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct: Canons 5A(3)(d)(iii) and 5F(9).
Statutes: Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 23-15-1025 and 23-15-897.
Other opinions cited: Public Opinion 2022-04; Special Committee Opinions 2018-26, 2018-27, 2006-002 and 2014-001.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Judicial Election Oversight Committee opinions
- Original PDF: Public Opinion No. 2022-06
- 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