Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-SD

Must an unopposed incumbent South Dakota judge file a campaign finance disclosure report?

Short answer The Committee said no report was required for the unopposed incumbent under the cited 2014 statutes, although it said filing would be advisable if the incumbent received campaign funds.
Bar
JUDICIAL-SD
Issued
May 21, 2014
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2014. 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 Not binding precedent.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

An incumbent judge without an opponent asked whether a campaign finance disclosure statement was required. The Committee answered no under the statutes it cited in 2014.

The Committee read SDCL 12-27-22 and the definition of county office in SDCL 12-27-1(7) to include the judicial election at issue. It added that filing a report would be advisable if the unopposed incumbent had received campaign funds. The opinion did not state that receipt of funds itself made a report legally required.

Currency note

This 2014 opinion applied then-current South Dakota campaign finance statutes. Verify later statutory changes before using its reporting conclusion.

In practice

The opinion distinguished the unopposed incumbent’s reporting obligation from the Committee’s stated preference for filing after receiving campaign funds. Its statutory analysis reflects the law it read in 2014.

Common questions

Q: Did the Committee require a report from the unopposed incumbent?

A: No. It concluded that the cited statutes did not require one.

Q: What if the incumbent received contributions?

A: The Committee said filing would be advisable in that situation, without saying it became mandatory.

Background and rules framework

The Committee interpreted SDCL 12-27-22 and SDCL 12-27-1(7), rather than a numbered Canon, for the campaign reporting question.

Citations and references

  • SDCL §§ 12-27-22 and 12-27-1(7).

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2014. 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