Opinion 23
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rules are Rule 2-4.2 Campaign Conduct of Judges and Judicial Candidates, Subdivision (A)(6). See also Rule 2-2.12 – Supervisory Duties.)
Issue:
May an Associate Circuit Judge of St. Louis County allow his court employees to participate in political activities?
Discussion:
Canon 7 “A Judge should refrain from political activity inappropriate to his judicial office” clearly prohibits a judge from engaging in political activity except as outlined in Canon 7 for his own election campaign. Additionally Canon 7B(1)(b) states:
It is clear that a candidate for judicial office may not allow his employees to engage in political activity. Canon 3B(2) requires a judge to “require his staff and court officials subject to his direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to him”. The Code of Judicial Conduct expects a judge to hold his employees to a similar standard of conduct.
In the present case the judge is under the non-partisan court plan and is prevented from engaging in any political activity. He is responsible for hiring or discharging the court employees. It is the Commission’s opinion that the judge is also responsible for preventing his employees from engaging in political activity.
Such a requirement is within the spirit of the Code of Judicial Conduct and has been previously examined in the case of Cathleen Connealy v. James F. Walsh, Director of Juvenile Court Services, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri, a copy of which is attached.
(Dated: April 25, 1979)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 23
OPINION 23
Issue:
May an Associate Circuit Judge of St. Louis County allow his court employees to participate in political activities?
Discussion:
Canon 7 “A Judge should refrain from political activity inappropriate to his judicial office” clearly prohibits a judge from engaging in political activity except as outlined in Canon 7 for his own election campaign. Additionally Canon 7B(1)(b) states:
“B. Campaign Conduct
(1) A candidate, including an incumbent judge, for a judicial office that is filled either by public election between competing candidates or on the basis of a merit system election:
* * *
(b) should prohibit public officials or employees subject to his direction or control from doing for him what he is prohibited from doing under this Canon; and except to the extent authorized under subsection B (2) or B(3)…”.
It is clear that a candidate for judicial office may not allow his employees to engage in political activity. Canon 3B(2) requires a judge to “require his staff and court officials subject to his direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to him”. The Code of Judicial Conduct expects a judge to hold his employees to a similar standard of conduct.
In the present case the judge is under the non-partisan court plan and is prevented from engaging in any political activity. He is responsible for hiring or discharging the court employees. It is the Commission’s opinion that the judge is also responsible for preventing his employees from engaging in political activity.
Such a requirement is within the spirit of the Code of Judicial Conduct and has been previously examined in the case of Cathleen Connealy v. James F. Walsh, Director of Juvenile Court Services, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri, a copy of which is attached.
(Dated: April 25, 1979)