Opinion Number: 98-24
Date of Issue: October 21, 1998
JUDICIAL CANDIDATE FOR MERIT RETENTION SPEAKING AT CANDIDATES'
NIGHT, SPONSORED BY CHURCH.
May a judicial candidate for merit retention, without active opposition, speak at a Candidates' Night event sponsored by a local church and open to the general public? ANSWER: Yes. See Canon 7(C) (2).
The inquiring party is a judicial candidate for merit retention. The candidate has been invited to appear at a Candidates' Night sponsored by a local church. The candidate will be introduced and allowed to speak for four minutes. The sponsoring church has invited guests from other churches, and the meeting is open to the general public. The candidate would like to attend and talk generally about the judicial system and her background. She asks whether this action would be a violation of the Judicial Canons.
The Code of Judicial Conduct allows a candidate for merit retention
to conduct only limited campaign activities until such time as
the judge certifies that the judge's candidacy has drawn active
opposition. Limited campaign activities include appearances and
speaking engagements before public gatherings and organizations.
Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 7(C)(2).
Attendance before the church group at Candidates' Night would
therefore be permissible.
At this forum the judge may also talk about the judicial system and her background.
In Opinion 77-21 an incumbent judge inquired
whether he could attend the meeting of a non-partisan civil, social or homeowner's
association to give a speech solely relating to a county judge's role in the
judicial system and in the improvement of the administration of justice, prior
to the time of qualifying for the judicial office presently held. Eight members
of the Committee expressed the view that the conduct anticipated by this inquiry
was permissible under Canon 4A (which is now Canon 4B). Canon 4B provides:
" A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach and participate
in other activities concerning the law, the legal system and the
administration of justice, subject to the requirements of this
Code."
Two Committee members did have concerns that should be pointed
out to the inquiring judge.
One member of the Committee agreed that the judge may attend the
event; but he stated: "I am concerned, however, that we not
construe Canon 7C(2) in an unduly broad manner. It is true that
this section allows merit retention candidates to make appearances
and speaking engagements before public gatherings and organizations.
There has never been, to my knowledge, an opinion of this Committee
construing that language. It would seem to me that if this language
is construed broadly, then a merit retention candidate may do
anything that any other candidate can do, with the exception perhaps
of utilizing signs, advertisements, and campaign literature. I
am not convinced that this is consistent with the spirit of limited
campaign activities envisioned by Canon 7... What makes the invitation
to speak now under review clearly acceptable, in my view, are
the distinct parameters placed upon it by the program organizer.
Specifically, each candidate is allowed a limited time to speak;
no surrogates may speak; and no questions will be allowed. This
type of structured environment is compatible with 7C(2). On the
other hand, if merit retention judges begin attending other sorts
of political rallies and meetings, even though they are open to
the public, I believe it would be very difficult for the candidate
to observe the limited campaign activities restriction of 7C(2).
It is one thing for a judge to appear and explain the function
of a district court of appeal judge and to speak briefly on the
merit retention process; it is quite another thing for a judge
to appear at a function and be put in a position of having to
respond directly to questions of why someone should vote to retain
that particular judge. "
Another Committee member stated that although he too agreed that
the judge could appear at the function and speak about the legal
system, the administration of justice, and her background, "a
question might arise whether discussions about background constitute
limited campaign activity."
In conclusion, a candidate for merit retention who has no active
opposition may appear before a non-partisan group's Candidates'
forum and speak about the judicial system in general and about
the judge's background.
REFERENCES
Florida Code Jud. Conduct, Canons 7(C)(2) and 4(B) (formerly Canon
4A)
Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion : 77-21.
_____________________
The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee is expressly charged
with rendering advisory opinions interpreting the application
of the Code of Judicial Conduct to specific circumstances confronting
or affecting a judge or judicial candidate. Its opinions are advisory
to the inquiring party, to the Judicial Qualifications Commission
and to the judiciary at large. Conduct that is consistent with
an advisory opinion issued by the Committee may be evidence of
good faith on the part of the judge, but the Judicial Qualifications
Commission is not bound by the interpretive opinions by the Committee.
Petition of the Committee on Standards of Conduct Governing
Judges, 698 So.2d. 834 (Fla. 1997). However, in reviewing
the recommendations of the Judicial Qualification Commission for
discipline, the Florida Supreme Court will consider conduct in
accordance with a Committee opinion as evidence of good faith.
Id.
For further information, contact The Honorable Lisa D. Kahn, Chairperson,
Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, Moore Justice Center, 2825
Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida, 32940-8006.
Participating Members: Judges Cardonne, Dell, C. Kahn, L. Kahn,
Patterson, Rodriquez, Rushing, Smith, Tolton and Mr. Blanton.
Copies furnished to:
Justice Charles T. Wells
All Committee Members
All Members of the J.Q.C
Office of the State Courts Administrator (Name of inquiring judge
deleted from this copy)