Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-SD

Did the South Dakota judicial candidate’s political-party appearances violate the Code?

Short answer The Committee found no Code violation on the alleged facts, which included appearances at party events and availability of campaign materials. It distinguished the statute restricting political-party endorsements from restrictions on the candidate.
Bar
JUDICIAL-SD
Issued
October 10, 2006
Source
View Original PDF

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.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A complaint challenged a judicial candidate's appearances at party events and the availability of campaign materials through a political party. The Committee assumed the disputed allegations were true for its analysis and found no violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Committee read then-current Canon 5C(1) to permit a candidate to attend political gatherings, identify as a party member and speak on the candidate's own behalf. It distinguished SDCL 12-9-2, which it said addressed a political party's endorsement or nomination of a candidate, from the candidate's own conduct.

The Committee did not decide the statute's constitutionality. It said no formal party endorsement or nomination had occurred on the facts it reviewed and concluded the complaint did not establish a Code violation.

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 allowed the described candidate activity under the 2006 Code while leaving the separate statutory restriction on a party’s own endorsement outside its decision.

Common questions

Q: Did the alleged party-event appearances violate the Code?

A: No. The Committee found no violation even assuming the complaint’s allegations were true.

Q: Did the Committee decide whether SDCL 12-9-2 was constitutional?

A: No. It said that question was beyond its role.

Q: Was there a formal party endorsement?

A: The Committee said the candidate had not been formally endorsed or nominated by the party.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied the then-current South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Preamble, Canon 2 commentary and Canons 5C(1) and 5C(2). It distinguished SDCL 12-9-2 and discussed Republican Party of Minnesota v. White as background to the Code changes.

Citations and references

  • South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Preamble; Canon 2 commentary; Canons 5C(1) and 5C(2).
  • S.D. Const. art. V, § 7; SDCL § 12-9-2.
  • Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 416 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2005).

See also

Source

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