Could a South Dakota magistrate judge wear a judicial robe in campaign material for a circuit court seat?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2006. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A magistrate judge asked whether campaign material for a circuit court position could show the judge in a robe. The Committee permitted it if the material clearly and unequivocally identified the candidate as a magistrate judge, rather than a circuit judge.
The Committee applied its reasoning from Opinion 06-01 concerning an incumbent circuit judge. It said magistrate judges were judges under the Code and commonly wore robes in that office. Under Canon 5A(3)(d)(ii), the image itself did not misstate the magistrate's position, but an inaccurate impression of incumbency in the circuit court had to be avoided.
Currency note
This 2006 opinion applied South Dakota's then-current Code of Judicial Conduct and, where cited, election statutes. Later changes may affect its analysis; verify the current sources before relying on it.
In practice
The opinion approved a robe photograph when the campaign material accurately labeled the candidate’s existing magistrate position.
Common questions
Q: Why did the Committee require identification of the current office?
A: It sought to avoid voters mistaking the magistrate for an incumbent circuit judge.
Q: Did a robe itself misrepresent the magistrate’s office?
A: No. The Committee said magistrate judges commonly wore robes while exercising their office.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former Canon 5A(3)(d)(ii) on knowing misrepresentation and the Code’s Application section defining a judge. It cited Opinion 06-01 and ethics guidance from Ohio, Nevada and New Mexico.
Citations and references
- South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5A(3)(d)(ii), Application § A.
- South Dakota Special Committee Opinion 06-01; Ohio Advisory Opinion 2003-8; Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline Decision 02-03; New Mexico Judicial Ethics Handbook 12-831.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Judicial Elections Committee
- Original PDF: 2006 prior-opinions compilation, Opinion 06-03
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2006. 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