May an elected Mississippi chancery judge say re-elect after judicial district boundaries change?

Plain-English summary

A sitting chancery judge had been elected in Mississippi's 7th Judicial District and planned to run again after a redistricting that slightly changed the district's geographic area and removed its post designation. The judge asked whether campaign materials and speeches could still say "re-elect."

The Committee applied Canon 5A(3)(d)(iii), which forbids a judicial candidate from knowingly misrepresenting the candidate's identity, qualifications or present position. It concluded that the judge remained an elected chancellor in the same numbered district, so "re-elect" did not misrepresent the position on these facts.

The opinion distinguished Special Committee Opinion 2020-02, which said an appointed judge who had not been elected could not use "re-elect." The present candidate had been elected before the district changes.

In practice

For the elected chancellor and district changes described, the opinion permits "re-elect" in campaign communications. Its reasoning depends on the candidate's earlier election and continuing office in the 7th Judicial District.

Common questions

Q: Did the removal of the district post designation bar "re-elect"?

A: No. The Committee said the change did not erase the fact that the candidate had been elected chancellor in the 7th Judicial District.

Q: Did the Committee reach the same conclusion for a judge who was appointed?

A: No. It distinguished the former Special Committee's Opinion 2020-02, which said an appointed judge who had not been elected could not use "re-elect."

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5A(3)(d)(iii)'s prohibition on knowingly misrepresenting a judicial candidate's identity, qualifications, present position or other facts. It applies that provision to the candidate's prior election and the described redistricting.

Citations and references

Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct:

• Canon 5A(3)(d)(iii), candidate misrepresentations.

Other opinion cited:

• Special Committee on Judicial Election Campaign Intervention Opinion 2020-02, appointed judges' use of "re-elect."

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: Judicial Election Oversight Committee opinions
• Original PDF: Public Opinion No. 2026-01

Original opinion text

Best-effort extraction from the official public PDF. Minor OCR errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

Judicial Election Oversight Committee

2026 Judicial Elections
FEB 18 2026
Public Opinion No. 2026-01
OFFICE OF T~HE
SUPREMEC C RK
.
2021-M-01306-SCT COURT OF S

The Judicial Election Oversight Committee ("Oversight Committee") has received a request for an opinion as to whether a sitting Chancery Court Judge can use the term "re-elect" in campaign literature, ads, speeches, etc. after a judicial redistricting. The candidate was elected as a Chancellor in the 7th Judicial District during the prior election. Although the candidate is still running for Chancellor in the 7th Judicial District, the geographical area will be slightly changed and the reference to the post within the Judicial District has been removed.

In Special Committee on Judicial Election Campaign Intervention Opinion 2020- 02, it was clearly established that sitting judges who were appointed, not elected, can not utilize the term "re-elect." However, the Committee believes that the current question has not been covered in a prior Committee opinion and candidates would benefit from a public opinion.

Canon 5A(3)(d)(iii) of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judicial candidate shall not "knowingly misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position or other fact concerning the candidate or an opponent." It is the opinion of this Committee that the removal of the post in the 7th Judicial District does not change the fact that the Chancellor was duly elected as Chancellor in the 7th Judicial District. Thus, utilizing the term "re-elect" does not misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position or other fact concerning the candidate and should be allowed.