Did a disclaimer-free flyer distributed before a South Dakota judicial candidate filed a petition violate the Code when the candidate did not authorize or pay for it?
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 complaint concerned a campaign flyer without the disclaimer described in SDCL 12-25-4.1. The flyer appeared before the judicial candidate filed a nominating petition. The candidate said it had been neither authorized nor paid for by the candidate.
The Committee recognized that Supreme Court Rule 05-13 incorporated the disclaimer statute's requirements into the Code, as it had explained in Opinion 06-07. On the candidate's response, it found that those requirements did not appear to have been triggered here. It dismissed the complaint and released a redacted version of its correspondence to guide other candidates.
Currency note
This 2006 opinion applied South Dakota's then-current Code of Judicial Conduct and campaign statutes. Later changes may affect its analysis; verify the current sources before relying on it.
In practice
The opinion found no Code violation warranting intervention on the facts presented about this prefiling flyer.
Common questions
Q: Was the absence of a disclaimer enough to establish a violation here?
A: No. The Committee accepted the candidate's response that the flyer was not authorized or paid for by the candidate and had circulated before filing.
Q: Did the Committee retract its earlier disclaimer opinion?
A: No. It cited Opinion 06-07 while finding that the requirements did not appear to be triggered on these facts.
Background and rules framework
The Committee discussed Supreme Court Rule 05-13 and SDCL 12-25-4.1 as incorporated into the judicial conduct framework, citing its Formal Opinion 06-07.
Citations and references
- Supreme Court Rule 05-13; SDCL § 12-25-4.1.
- South Dakota Special Committee Formal Opinion 06-07.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Judicial Elections Committee
- Original PDF: 2006 prior-opinions compilation, Opinion 06-08
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