Opinion 155
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rules are 2-1.1 Compliance with the Law; and 2-4.2 Campaign Conduct of Judges and Judicial Candidates, Subdivision (A)(5).)
Issue:
May a candidate for judicial office publicly criticize a sitting judge on the ground that the judge frequently serves outside his county or circuit pursuant to assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Discussion:
The Commission in Opinion No. 152 determined that a judicial candidate during an election campaign is within the Commission’s jurisdiction and subject to the proscriptions of Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 7, concerning campaign conduct.
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 7 B(1)(c) requires that a judicial candidate should not “misrepresent his identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact”.
Pursuant to Article 5, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, all state judges are obliged to serve on the orders of the Chief Justice in any county or circuit where they are needed. “A circuit judge is a judge of the State of Missouri and not merely a judge of the circuit in which he is elected or appointed.” State v. Shriver, 741 S.W.2d 836.838 (Mo.App. 1987). In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline to suggest that such service is in any way inappropriate would be misrepresentation of the fact that such service is an inherent part of the duties of a state judge. In addition to violating Canon 7 such public criticism of a judge performing his duties would also be violative of Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 2, which requires that a judge should avoid the appearance of impropriety.
It is the Commission’s opinion, therefore, that a judicial candidate should not publicly criticize the sitting judge’s absence from his county or circuit while performing his duty in serving under assignment of the Chief Justice.
(Dated: October 31, 1990)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 155
Issue:
May a candidate for judicial office publicly criticize a sitting judge on the ground that the judge frequently serves outside his county or circuit pursuant to assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Discussion:
The Commission in Opinion No. 152 determined that a judicial candidate during an election campaign is within the Commission’s jurisdiction and subject to the proscriptions of Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 7, concerning campaign conduct.
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 7 B(1)(c) requires that a judicial candidate should not “misrepresent his identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact”.
Pursuant to Article 5, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, all state judges are obliged to serve on the orders of the Chief Justice in any county or circuit where they are needed. “A circuit judge is a judge of the State of Missouri and not merely a judge of the circuit in which he is elected or appointed.” State v. Shriver, 741 S.W.2d 836.838 (Mo.App. 1987). In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline to suggest that such service is in any way inappropriate would be misrepresentation of the fact that such service is an inherent part of the duties of a state judge. In addition to violating Canon 7 such public criticism of a judge performing his duties would also be violative of Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 2, which requires that a judge should avoid the appearance of impropriety.
It is the Commission’s opinion, therefore, that a judicial candidate should not publicly criticize the sitting judge’s absence from his county or circuit while performing his duty in serving under assignment of the Chief Justice.
(Dated: October 31, 1990)