Can an Ohio judge appear in a spouse's campaign literature or allow the spouse's campaign signs on jointly owned property?

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001 under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which the Board flagged as superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 2009. The Canon 7 and Canon 4 provisions discussed here have been renumbered and revised in the current Code. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Plain-English summary

The Board addressed how far a judge may participate in a spouse's campaign for elected public or judicial office without violating the prohibition on a judge publicly endorsing a candidate under Canon 7(B)(2)(b) of the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. It concluded that the judge may appear in the family picture and be listed by name, with or without the title "judge," in the spouse's campaign literature, but the judge must not otherwise be depicted in an official capacity in the family picture. The Board reasoned that inclusion in a family picture and identification by name and title did not amount to a "public endorsement."

The Board also concluded that the judge may allow campaign signs promoting the spouse's candidacy to be placed on real estate jointly owned by the judge and spouse, because placing a sign on co-owned property is not a public endorsement under Canon 7(B)(2)(b).

The Board cautioned that the opinion does not allow unfettered participation. It gave illustrative limits: a judge may attend and speak to political gatherings under Canon 7(B)(3), but may not speak publicly in support of the spouse's candidacy; may not wear a campaign button in public or in chambers to support the spouse; and may not display a campaign sign for the spouse in judicial chambers. The Board explained that each of those acts would constitute a prohibited public endorsement and would improperly lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the spouse's interests under Canon 4(A). The examples were illustrative and not an exhaustive list of prohibited conduct.

Common questions

Q: Could an Ohio judge appear in a spouse's campaign literature?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded the judge may appear in the family picture and be listed by name, with or without the "judge" title, but may not otherwise be depicted in an official capacity, and this is not a public endorsement under Canon 7(B)(2)(b).

Q: Could the judge allow the spouse's campaign signs on property they own together?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded that placing a spouse's campaign sign on jointly owned property is not a public endorsement under Canon 7(B)(2)(b).

Q: What campaign activity did the opinion say the judge could not do?

A: The opinion stated the judge may not publicly speak in support of the spouse's candidacy, wear a campaign button in public or in chambers, or display a campaign sign in chambers, because each is a prohibited public endorsement and lends judicial prestige to the spouse under Canon 4(A).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, primarily Canon 7(B)(2)(b) (a judge shall not publicly endorse a candidate for public office), along with Canon 7(B)(3) (a judge's permitted political activity, including attending and speaking to political gatherings) and Canon 4(A) (a judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests). These provisions correspond to the political-conduct and abuse-of-prestige restrictions carried forward, in renumbered form, in the current Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.

Citations and references

Rules of Judicial Conduct:

• Former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 7(B)(2)(b), Canon 7(B)(3), Canon 4(A)

See also

• Ohio BPC Op. 1989-019: Disqualification When a Judge's Spouse Is a Police Officer
• Ohio BPC Op. 1989-020: Spouses Serving as Judges in the Same County
• Ohio BPC Op. 1988-017: Judicial Campaign Political Contributions

Source

• Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
• Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-01-001.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 2001-1
                                 Issued February 2, 2001

[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.]

SYLLABUS: When a judge’s spouse is a candidate for elected public or judicial office,
the judge may appear in the family picture and be listed by name with or without the title
“judge” in the spouse’s campaign literature. However, the judge shall not be otherwise
depicted in his or her official capacity in the family picture. A judge’s inclusion in a
family picture and identification by name and title in a spouse’s campaign literature does
not constitute a “public endorsement” by the judge under Canon 7(B)(2)(b) of the Ohio
Code of Judicial Conduct.

When a judge’s spouse is a candidate for elected public or judicial office, the judge may
allow campaign signs promoting the spouse’s candidacy to be placed on real estate
jointly owned by the judge and spouse. Placement of a spouse’s campaign sign on
property co-owned by a judge and spouse does not constitute a “public endorsement” by
the judge under Canon 7(B)(2)(b) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.

This opinion is not to be construed as allowing judges unfettered participation in a
spouse’s campaign. Judges are not permitted to participate in whatever manner they
choose with regard to a spouse’s campaign for elected public or judicial office. Judges
are bound by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. As an example, a judge is permitted
under Canon 7(B)(3) to attend political gatherings and speak to political gatherings, but a
judge may not speak publicly in support of his or her spouse’s candidacy for that
constitutes a prohibited “public endorsement” under Canon 7(B)(2)(b). As a second
example, a judge may not wear a campaign button in public or in his or her chambers to
support a spouse’s candidacy for elected public or judicial office for that constitutes a
prohibited “public endorsement.” As a third example, a judge may not display in his or
her judicial chambers a campaign sign supporting the spouse’s candidacy for that
constitutes a prohibited “public endorsement.” Such activities also improperly lend the
prestige of the judicial office to advance the interests of the spouse under Canon 4(A).
These examples are illustrative and are not an exhaustive list of prohibited conduct.

OPINION: This opinion addresses two questions regarding a judge’s conduct when the
judge’s spouse is a candidate for elected public or judicial office. This opinion does not
otherwise address political activities by a judge’s spouse.
Opinion 2001-1 2

   1. Is it proper for a judge to appear in a family picture used in the
      campaign literature of his or her spouse who is a candidate for elected
      or judicial office?

   2. Is it proper for a judge to allow campaign signs promoting the
      candidacy of his or her spouse for elected public or judicial office to
      be placed on real estate jointly owned by them?

Question One

   Is it proper for a judge to appear in a family picture used in the campaign
   literature of his or her spouse who is a candidate for elected or judicial
   office?

The Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits a judge or judicial candidate from publicly
endorsing a candidate for another public office. That prohibition is found in Canon
7(B)(2)(b).

   Canon 7(B)(2) A judge or judicial candidate shall not do any of the
   following:

           (b) Make speeches on behalf of a political organization or another
           candidate at a political meeting or publicly endorse or oppose a
           candidate for another public office.

When a candidate for public office or judicial office is a judge’s spouse, what is the
application of Canon 7(B)(2)(b)? To what extent, if any, does this rule apply? By its
language, the rule is absolute with no stated exceptions. Thus, the Board must determine
whether a judge’s inclusion in the family picture used in a spouse’s campaign literature is
a prohibited “public endorsement” under Canon 7(B)(2)(b).

To endorse is “to give approval of or support to.” Webster’s II New Riverside University
Dictionary 431 (1984). True, a family pictures symbolizes love and support; however, in
this Board’s view it is not a “public endorsement” of a family member’s candidacy even
when included in campaign literature. The love and support portrayed by a family
picture applies to the members of a family generally in all their endeavors, not
specifically to one family member’s candidacy for elective office.

In campaign literature, a family picture provides biographical information regarding a
candidate. The family picture is often accompanied by the names of the family members
and sometimes other biographical family information is provided. The Board finds no
ethical bar to using a family picture and listing a judge’s name with or without the title
“judge” along with the names of the other family members in the campaign literature of a
judge’s spouse. Family member pictures, names, and occupations are biographical
information about a candidate and the candidate’s family, not a prohibited “public
endorsement.”
Opinion 2001-1 3

The Board is aware that at least one state’s commission advised that a judge may not
allow his or her picture to be used in the campaign of an immediate family member. See
Alabama, Judicial Inquiry Commission, Op. 82-143 (1982). The Board is also aware that
one state’s committee advised that the campaign literature of a spouse or daughter of a
judge may state that the candidate is related to the judge but may not give an indication of
the judge’s office or use the title in the campaign literature. See New Mexico, Judicial
Advisory Committee, Op. 89-2 (1989). This Board disagrees for the reasons stated
above. In this Board’s view, a judge appearing in a family picture and having his or her
name listed with or without the title judge in the campaign literature of his or her spouse
does not constitute a “public endorsement” under Canon 7(B)(2)(b).

In conclusion, this Board advises that when a judge’s spouse is a candidate for elected
public or judicial office, the judge may appear in the family picture and be listed by name
with or without the title “judge” in the spouse’s campaign literature. However, the judge
shall not be otherwise depicted in his or her official capacity in the family picture. A
judge’s inclusion in a family picture and identification by name and title in a spouse’s
campaign literature does not constitute a “public endorsement” by the judge under Canon
7(B)(2)(b) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.

Question Two

   Is it proper for a judge to allow campaign signs promoting the candidacy
   of his or her spouse for elected public or judicial office to be placed on
   real estate jointly owned by them?

It is not uncommon for spouses to jointly own real property, a home, an office, and or
other real estate. This holds true even when one of the spouses is a judge, for the Ohio
Code of Judicial Conduct does not bar a judge from owning real estate individually or
with others.

Like any other candidate, a judge’s spouse who is a candidate for elected public or
judicial office wants to place his or her campaign signs on property the candidate owns.
When a candidate and a judge jointly own property, does the placement of a campaign
sign supporting the candidacy of the judge’s spouse constitute a prohibited Canon
7(B)(2)(b) “public endorsement” by the judge?

It is this Board’s view that a campaign sign supporting the candidacy of a judge’s spouse
on property jointly owned by the judge and the spouse does not constitute a prohibited
“public endorsement” under Canon 7(B)(2)(b). The placement of the sign allows the
candidate to use his or her own property to support his or her candidacy.

In conclusion, this Board advises that when a judge’s spouse is a candidate for elected
public or judicial office, the judge may allow campaign signs promoting the spouse’s
candidacy to be placed on real estate jointly owned by the judge and spouse. Placement
of a spouse’s campaign sign on property co-owned by a judge and spouse does not
Opinion 2001-1 4

constitute a “public endorsement” by the judge under Canon 7(B)(2)(b) of the Ohio Code
of Judicial Conduct.

This opinion is not to be construed as allowing judges unfettered participation in a
spouse’s campaign. Judges are not permitted to participate in whatever manner they
choose with regard to a spouse’s campaign for elected public or judicial office. Judges
are bound by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. As an example, a judge is permitted
under Canon 7(B)(3) to attend political gatherings and speak to political gatherings, but a
judge may not speak publicly in support of his or her spouse’s candidacy for that
constitutes a prohibited “public endorsement” under Canon 7(B)(2)(b). As a second
example, a judge may not wear a campaign button in public or in his or her chambers to
support a spouse’s candidacy for elected public or judicial office for that constitutes a
prohibited “public endorsement.” As a third example, a judge may not display in his or
her judicial chambers a campaign sign supporting the spouse’s candidacy for that
constitutes a prohibited “public endorsement.” Such activities also improperly lend the
prestige of the judicial office to advance the interests of the spouse under Canon 4(A).
These examples are illustrative and are not an exhaustive list of prohibited conduct.

Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions
regarding the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the
Bar of Ohio, the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the
Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the
Attorney’s Oath of Office.