Could a South Dakota circuit judge in an uncontested election endorse another circuit court candidate?
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
An incumbent circuit judge asked whether a judge who was not in a contested election could endorse a judicial candidate. The Committee answered yes, concluding that the absence of an opponent did not remove the judge from the class of judges subject to public election.
The opinion relied on Canon 5C(1)(b)(iii), which allowed a judge or candidate subject to public election to endorse or oppose candidates for the same judicial office in an election in which the judge or candidate was running. It also cited the Code's definition of public election, which included primary, general and retention elections, and repeated Opinion 06-02's discussion of speech and association.
Currency note
This 2006 opinion applied South Dakota's then-current Code of Judicial Conduct. Later changes may affect its analysis; verify the current Code before relying on it.
In practice
The opinion allowed the inquiring incumbent to endorse circuit court candidates despite the incumbent's uncontested race.
Common questions
Q: Did an uncontested race prevent the incumbent from endorsing another circuit court candidate?
A: No. The Committee said the incumbent was still subject to public election.
Q: What did the Code mean by public election in this opinion?
A: The opinion quoted the Code's definition as covering primary, general and retention elections.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5C(1)(b)(iii), its commentary and its definition of public election. It quoted its earlier Formal Opinion 06-02 on endorsements and candidates' speech and association rights.
Citations and references
- South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5C(1)(b)(iii), commentary, Preamble and Terminology section.
- South Dakota Special Committee Formal Opinion 06-02.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Judicial Elections Committee
- Original PDF: 2006 prior-opinions compilation, Opinion 06-06
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