Could a magistrate candidate attend a right-to-life candidates’ forum in 2004?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2004. 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 magistrate asked whether to attend a candidates’ forum organized by a West Virginians for Life chapter. The Commission quoted former Canon 5’s limits on campaign commitments, then cited Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), as invalidating an announcement clause. It said West Virginia had not yet revised its code, leaving no clear legal guidance. The Commission said the cited Supreme Court decision suggested the candidate could attend if desired, and left the choice to the candidate's discretion.
In practice
The opinion expressly identified uncertainty because the state code had not yet been changed after the cited 2002 decision; its forum discussion was tied to that historical setting.
Common questions
Q: Did the Commission give an unqualified yes or no on attendance?
A: No. It said guidance was unclear and suggested the candidate could attend using discretion.
Q: What created the stated uncertainty?
A: The Commission said West Virginia had not yet changed its code after Minnesota v. White.
Background and rules framework
The letter quoted former Canon 5A(3)(d)(i)-(ii) and discussed the 2002 Supreme Court decision it called Minnesota v. White.
Citations and references
West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct (former): Canon 5; Canon 5A(3)(d)(i)-(ii). Case cited by the opinion: Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002).
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2004-20, redacted
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.
JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION
Post Office Box 1629
Charleston, West Virginia 25326-1629
(304) 558-0169 * FAX (304) 558-0831
June 11, 2004
JIC Advisory Opinion 2004-20
Dear Magistrate
In a recent letter to the Judicial Investigation Commission you asked for an advisory opinion regarding whether you could attend a certain function. You stated that you received a letter from the ; County Chapter, West Virginians for Life, stating that there would be a candidates’ forum and that candidates for local office would be given one to two minutes to introduce themselves. The correspondence stated that candidates for state and Federal offices would be given five to ten minutes for statement and would be asked to respond to questions involving right-to-life issues. You asked whether it was appropriate for you to attend such a function.
The Commission reviewed Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to address the question which you have raised. That Canon states in relevant part:
Canon 5. A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.
A. All judges and candidates -
(3) a candidate for judicial office
(d) shall not:
The Honorable
June 11, 2004
Page 2
(i) make pledges or promises of conduct in office other
than the faithful and impartial performance of the
duties of the office;
(ii) make statements that commit or appear commit
the candidate with respect to cases, controversies,
or issues that are likely to come before the court... .
This provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct in this state would suggest that you could not make any comments on issues which would be addressed at the forum to which you have been invited. However, the United States Supreme Court in Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) has held the “announcement clause” of Codes of Judicial Conduct to be unconstitutional. The Court has stated that a judicial candidate could give his or her opinion about issues during a campaign.
This state has not yet modified the Code of Judicial Conduct to address the U. S. Supreme Court decision. For that reason the Commission is left without clear legal guidance, but it is suggested in the U. S. Supreme Court decision that you could attend such functions if you so chose. You can use your own discretion regarding that.
If there is any further question regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact the Commission.
Very truly yours,
Judge Fred L. Fox, II
Chairperson
bi
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2004. 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