Could a judge publicly endorse or oppose ballot issues, such as a county sales tax for a new jail and courthouse or a merit-selection plan for judges?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Currency note
The Board's status list flags this opinion as not current: it is a former Code of Judicial Conduct opinion subject to subsequent rule amendments to Canon 7 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, and the former Code was superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 2009. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which governs judges' political and campaign activity, before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Plain-English summary
The Board addressed two similar requests about judges endorsing or opposing issues in an upcoming election. The first concerned a county sales tax to finance needed improvements to the county jail and courthouse; the second concerned a merit-selection plan for selecting and retaining Ohio judges.
The Board concluded that judges could ethically endorse or oppose economic or political issues or measures, provided they were intended to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, citing former Canon 7A(4). The Board found that both the county sales tax (tied to the jail and courthouse) and the merit-selection plan involved attempts to improve the law and the administration of justice, so a judge could ethically make known the judge's opinion on either, whether for or against.
Common questions
Q: Could a judge take a public position on the county sales-tax ballot issue?
A: Yes. The Board found the sales tax was tied to improving the jail and courthouse, a matter affecting the administration of justice, so under former Canon 7A(4) a judge could ethically endorse or oppose it.
Q: What was the limit on judges commenting on ballot measures?
A: The measure had to be one intended to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. Former Canon 7A(4) supplied that standard.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies former Canon 7A(4) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which permitted a judge to engage in activity to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. The Board treated both ballot questions as falling within that permission because each bore on the administration of justice.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former CJC Canon 7A(4), Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct
See also
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1987-040: Judge Speaking Out Against an Organization
- Ohio BPC Opinion 1987-030: Judicial Candidate Sentencing-Policy Pledges
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op-87-044.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 87-044
Issued: October 13, 1987
[Former CJC Opinion-provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which is superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. 3/1/2009.]
[Not Current: subsequent rule amendments to Canon 7, Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct]
SYLLABUS: Judges may ethically express their opinion regarding economic and political issues or measures intended to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.
OPINION: We have before us two separate but similar requests for advisory opinions relating to judges endorsing or opposing issues in an upcoming election. The first request concerns a county sales tax which would finance needed improvements to the county jail and courthouse. The second request concerns the merit selection plan for the selection and retention of judges in Ohio.
It is our opinion that judges may ethically endorse or oppose economic or political issues or measures, provided they are intended to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 7A(4). We believe that both of the aforementioned issues involve attempts to improve the law and the administration of justice. Therefore, whether a judge agrees or disagrees with a local county sales tax or the merit selection plan, he or she may ethically make known his or her opinion regarding these issues.
In conclusion, it is our opinion, and you are so advised that, as a judge, you may ethically express your opinion regarding a county sales tax to finance needed improvements to the county jail and courthouse, the merit selection plan or any other issue pertaining to the improvement of the law, the legal system and the administration of justice.
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion, based upon the facts as presented and limited to questions arising under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
James W. Mason, Esq.
Secretary
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1987 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.