May a judge’s secretary continue serving as an election poll worker?

Plain-English summary

A judge’s secretary had served as a poll worker for more than ten years and wanted to continue. The Commission reasoned that judicial employees work close to judges and can be viewed by the public as extensions of judicial office. It said the secretary should not serve as a poll worker because of that public-perception concern.

In practice

The opinion applies the judicial office’s appearance concerns to close court staff, even though the request concerned the secretary rather than the judge.

Common questions

Q: Did the Commission permit continued poll work?

A: No. It advised the secretary not to serve.

Q: Why did employment matter?

A: A judicial secretary’s close work with the judge could make the public associate the employee with the judge’s office.

Q: Did it cite a numbered Canon?

A: No. It discussed the Code’s appearance and public confidence principles without a numbered citation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion invokes the Code’s restrictions on judicial appearance and public confidence as applied indirectly to close judicial employees; it cites no numbered Canon.

Citations and references

Authorities cited: The opinion refers generally to the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct but cites no numbered provision.

See also

• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2010-07
• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2011-04

Source

• Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
• Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2010-06, 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

May 10, 2010
Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 2010-06

Dear Judge

Your correspondence to which
requested an advisory opinion has been sent to this office. The Commission reviewed your correspondence at its last meeting. In your letter you state that your secretary wishes to serve as a poll worker and has worked the polls in excess of ten years and wishes to continue. You asked whether it would be appropriate for your secretary to continue serving as a poll worker.

As you know, the Code of Judicial Conduct places restrictions on the kinds of activities judges may engage in. Also, the Code at least indirectly places certain restrictions upon judicial employees because of their proximity to judicial officers and judicial activities. Among other things the Code requires a judge to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. A judicial secretary works closely with a judge and ts privy to the court’s correspondence, rulings, and internal workings. Because of this the public may view a Judicial secretary or other judicial staff as an extension of the judge because of the kind of work they are engaged in and the constant communication which occurs between the judicial employee and the judge.

After reviewing your correspondence and discussing it, the Commission feels that your secretary should not serve as a poll worker because of the probability that the public would view your secretary and other judicial employees as an extension of the judicial office.

May 10, 2010
Page Two

It is hoped that this opinion fully addresses the question which you have raised. If there is any further question regarding this matter do not hesitate to contact the Commission.

VVery truly yours,

yi
— ty ‘

Ronald E. Wilson, Vice-Chairperson
Judicial Investigation Commission

a

REW:nb