Is a South Dakota judicial candidate automatically responsible for a family member’s campaign conduct?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2022. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Committee addressed a complaint focused chiefly on a judicial candidate's family member. It found that the alleged conduct did not warrant formal intervention, even assuming the allegations were true, and issued guidance on family participation in judicial elections.
Reading Canon 5(3)(A), the Committee said a candidate must encourage family members to follow the political-conduct standards applicable to the candidate when supporting the campaign. The candidate is not strictly responsible for independent acts by a family member; family members may also participate in other political activity.
The Committee warned that close coordination could alter the analysis if a family member effectively acted as the candidate's surrogate. It described discussing the applicable standards with family members before and during the campaign and discouraging conduct contrary to the Code.
In practice
The opinion placed an encouragement duty on the candidate and distinguished independent family activity from conduct coordinated with the candidate. It did not find a violation in the complaint described.
Common questions
Q: Is the candidate strictly responsible for every family member’s political act?
A: No. The Committee rejected strict responsibility for a family member’s independent activities.
Q: What must the candidate do under the cited Canon?
A: The Committee said the candidate must encourage family members to follow the candidate’s standards when they support the campaign.
Q: Can coordinated family activity change the result?
A: Yes. The Committee said a family member acting as the candidate’s surrogate could create a violation, depending on the facts.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5(3)(A), as printed in the opinion, on candidates and family members. Its commentary distinguishes support for the candidate from a family member’s other political activity.
Citations and references
- South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5(3)(A).
- Special Committee Rules and Operating Procedures, Rule 9.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Judicial Elections Committee
- Original PDF: Formal Opinion 22-02
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2022. 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