Could an appointed incumbent South Dakota circuit judge ask voters to “retain” the judge in a campaign ad?
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 appointed incumbent circuit court judge asked whether campaign material could use the word “retain.” The judge had not previously won an election, so the Committee agreed that “reelect” could mislead voters.
The Committee concluded that “retain” accurately described the incumbent's request to continue serving. It found that the proposed ad clearly identified a circuit court judge, so voters would not reasonably confuse the candidate with a Supreme Court justice facing a retention vote.
The analysis applied Canon 5A(3)(d)(ii)'s prohibition on knowing misrepresentations about a judicial candidate's identity, qualifications or current position.
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 the described “retain” wording for this appointed incumbent because the ad identified the circuit court office and did not falsely claim prior election.
Common questions
Q: Why did the Committee distinguish “reelect”?
A: The judge had been appointed and had not been elected before, so that word could be misleading.
Q: Why was “retain” acceptable?
A: The Committee said the ad accurately described continuing as a circuit court judge and did not misidentify the office.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5A(3)(d)(ii) on knowing campaign misrepresentations. It referred to the separate Supreme Court retention system in article V, section 7 of the South Dakota Constitution.
Citations and references
- South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5A(3)(d)(ii).
- S.D. Const. art. V, § 7.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Judicial Elections Committee
- Original PDF: 2006 prior-opinions compilation, Opinion 06-09
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