Opinion 129
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rule is 2-4.1Political Conduct of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General, Subdivision (B).)
Issue:
Where it is necessary that a judge be nominated and elected as a candidate of a political party, may a judge or judicial candidate attend political gatherings which are for the benefit of a specific candidate who is not the judge or judicial candidate?
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 7A(2) states:
In Opinion 31, the Commission allowed a judge who runs for election to attend political gatherings and to pay for the ticket provided the proceeds did not go to a specific individual’s campaign fund.
In Opinion 50, the Commission allowed a judge who runs for election to attend political gatherings regardless of whether he is running for election.
Canon 7A(2) and Opinion 31 and 50 do not clarify whether “political gatherings” includes fund raisers, victory parties or defeat parties for a specific candidate who is not the judge.
The Commission is cognizant of the political need for a judge or judicial candidate who runs for election to be seen at party functions and to associate with other candidates. The distinction of whether a political gathering is for a specific candidate, group of candidates, or for the party in general is often a difficult one to draw. Further, since courtesy invitations are often given to fellow candidates to attend fund raisers and election night parties, the issue of a judge making a political contribution to a specific candidate is often not relevant.
In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline “political gatherings” includes fund raisers, victory and defeat parties for a specific candidate who is not the judge. However, the judge’s or judicial candidate’s activities at such meeting, dinners, fund raisers and parties should be confined to speaking on his own behalf. He should not solicit funds, act as party leader, or advocate the election of anyone other than himself. Further, he may not make any contribution to a specific individual’s campaign fund. He should not purchase a ticket to a dinner or other fund raiser for the benefit of a specific candidate other than himself, where the purchase price of the ticket is intended to augment the campaign funds of such candidate.
Opinion 85 is withdrawn to the extent that is conflicts with the opinion.
(Undated)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 129
Issue:
Where it is necessary that a judge be nominated and elected as a candidate of a political party, may a judge or judicial candidate attend political gatherings which are for the benefit of a specific candidate who is not the judge or judicial candidate?
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 7A(2) states:
Where it is necessary that a judge be nominated and elected as a candidate of a political party, an incumbent judge or candidate for election to judicial office may attend or speak on his own behalf at political gatherings, and may make contributions to the campaign funds of the party of his choice.
In Opinion 31, the Commission allowed a judge who runs for election to attend political gatherings and to pay for the ticket provided the proceeds did not go to a specific individual’s campaign fund.
In Opinion 50, the Commission allowed a judge who runs for election to attend political gatherings regardless of whether he is running for election.
Canon 7A(2) and Opinion 31 and 50 do not clarify whether “political gatherings” includes fund raisers, victory parties or defeat parties for a specific candidate who is not the judge.
The Commission is cognizant of the political need for a judge or judicial candidate who runs for election to be seen at party functions and to associate with other candidates. The distinction of whether a political gathering is for a specific candidate, group of candidates, or for the party in general is often a difficult one to draw. Further, since courtesy invitations are often given to fellow candidates to attend fund raisers and election night parties, the issue of a judge making a political contribution to a specific candidate is often not relevant.
In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline “political gatherings” includes fund raisers, victory and defeat parties for a specific candidate who is not the judge. However, the judge’s or judicial candidate’s activities at such meeting, dinners, fund raisers and parties should be confined to speaking on his own behalf. He should not solicit funds, act as party leader, or advocate the election of anyone other than himself. Further, he may not make any contribution to a specific individual’s campaign fund. He should not purchase a ticket to a dinner or other fund raiser for the benefit of a specific candidate other than himself, where the purchase price of the ticket is intended to augment the campaign funds of such candidate.
Opinion 85 is withdrawn to the extent that is conflicts with the opinion.
(Undated)