The ABA Joint Commission to Evaluate the Model Code of Judicial Conduct (Commission) has issued draft revisions to Canons 1-5 and invites comments on these proposals by March 15. The proposals to revise Canon 5 on political activity contain a tiered system of restrictions on a judge’s participation in political activities. The proposed changes seek to impose a more restrictive system of regulating a judge’s political activities and speech while balancing the need for some judges to conduct campaigns for election.
The press release summarizes the proposals as follows:
The draft revisions by the Joint Commission to Evaluate the Model Code of Judicial Conduct would restrict conduct to varying degrees based on whether and under what circumstances a person is seeking judicial office.
The first provision, applying to judges who are not candidates for judicial office, would prohibit them from engaging in specific types of political activity, whether directly or through others. They could not lead or hold office in political organizations, publicly speak for or against political organizations, publicly endorse or oppose candidates for public office, attend meetings or other events sponsored by political organizations or candidates for public office, or solicit funds for, pay assessments to, contribute to or purchase tickets for events sponsored by political organizations or candidates for public office.
The next provision would apply to candidates for election or appointment to judicial office, including incumbent judges. It would retain prohibitions on leading or holding office in political organizations, publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and soliciting funds for, paying assessments to, contributing to or purchasing tickets for events sponsored by political organizations or candidates.
The provision also would add prohibitions on candidates knowingly making any false or misleading statement regarding any candidate for judicial office; making any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or fairness of a pending or impending court proceeding; making any pledges, promises or commitments with respect to cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court that would be inconsistent with impartial performance of adjudicative duties; manifesting bias or prejudice based upon a person's race, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status; personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions; or using or permitting the use of campaign contributions for anyone's private benefit.
For candidates seeking judicial office in partisan public elections, specific exceptions would allow more political activity. One would permit such candidates to establish campaign committees to solicit and accept campaign contributions in behalf of the candidate. A separate rule would govern how such committees could operate, establishing dollar limits on contributions, restricting the time before and after an election during which the committee could operate, and establishing disclosure requirements.
Candidates in partisan elections also could speak to gatherings on their own behalf, attend meetings or events sponsored by political organizations, publicly identify themselves as members of or candidates of political organizations, purchase tickets to events sponsored by political organizations, appear in media advertisements and distribute campaign literature supporting their own candidacies, and publicly endorse or oppose candidates running for other judgeships in the same judicial office. Press Release
This provision if enacted is likely to be challenged under a Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) first amendment attack. Proposed Canon 5.01 sweeps very broadly to prohibit all judges from directly or indirectly engaging in political activities such as attending meetings sponsored by political organizations or candidates, paying any funds to organizations or candidates, and speaking publicly in support of a political organization. The constitutionality and wisdom of such sweeping language is questionable.