Opinion Number: 98-27
Date of Issue: November 10, 1998
WHETHER A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE MAY USE ADVERTISING WHICH REPRODUCES
NEGATIVE OR CRITICAL HEADLINES, STORIES OR OPINIONS ABOUT THE
CANDIDATE'S OPPONENT?
Whether a judicial candidate may use radio, television or print
advertising which reproduces negative or critical newspaper headlines,
stories or opinions about the candidate's opponent?
The inquiring judicial candidate asks whether it would be a
violation of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct to produce radio,
television, or print advertising which reproduces negative or
critical newspaper headlines, negative or critical stories or
negative or critical opinions about the candidate's opponent.
A judicial candidate is bound by the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. See
Canon 7. The judicial candidate has posed a question regarding reproducing negative
or critical newspaper headlines or critical stories, or critical opinions about
the candidate's opponent. The candidate did not provide copies of the materials
that she was considering reproducing. However, even if the candidate had submitted
these items, the Committee would be reluctant to add to its function the review
of judicial candidates' campaign advertisements. In Opinion
94-35 the Committee responded to a request by a judicial candidate for an
opinion regarding the ethical propriety of two proposed scripts for television
campaign commercials, stating that the Committee "should not approve or
disapprove specific language of individual campaign advertisements, but, rather,
should provide the ethical provisions which judicial candidates must consider."
In ACLU Of Fla., Inc. v. The Florida Bar, 744 F. Supp.
1094 (N.D. Fla. 1990), Judge William Stafford stated:
A person does not surrender his constitutional right to freedom
of speech when he becomes a candidate for judicial office. A state
cannot require so much. Indeed, when a state decides that its
trial judges are to be popularly elected, as Florida has done,
it must recognize the candidates' right to make campaign speeches
and the concomitant right of the public to be informed about the
judicial candidates. ACLU, supra, 744 F. Supp. at 1097.
Nevertheless, Canon 7A(3)(d), which was adopted by the Florida
Supreme Court after ACLU, supra, provides restrictions
to which a candidate for a judicial office shall adhere. Canon
7A(3)(d) states:
(3) A candidate for judicial office
(d) shall not :
ii. make statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate
with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely
to come before the court; or
iii. knowingly misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present
position or other fact concerning the candidate or an opponent.
It would not be a violation per se of the Code for a judicial candidate
to reproduce negative articles about the candidate's opponents, but the candidate
must follow the mandates of Canon 7. This Committee's Opinions in 94-16
and 94-35 are instructive. In Opinion
94-16 the Committee stated: "The code does not directly address what
is ethically acceptable when a candidate wishes to criticize a political opponent.
Our Committee finds that in general it would be proper to criticize a political
opponent when the criticism is truthful, pertinent and material to judicial
office. We find it would also be improper to criticize a judge on any open case
as the candidate could conceivably have to rule on the same case and, of course,
the incumbent judge could not comment on a pending case." In Opinion
94-35 the Committee stated that a candidate must carefully craft each advertisement
so that there are no improper pledges or misrepresentations.
One Committee member further advised that the inquiring candidate
is responsible for verification of the information contained in
the newspaper articles the candidate wishes to use in the campaign.
It is not a defense to a violation of the Rules Regulating the
Florida Bar, Section 4-8.2(a) and (b) that the judge or candidate
relied upon the research of a media source in perpetuating what
may be a false statement about a judge or candidate for judicial
office. The Committee member also warned that the information
the candidate intends to republish must relate to the opponents
"qualifications" to sit as a judge, and not just a personal
attack on him/her.
The Committee would be remiss if it did not direct attention to
the Florida Supreme Court's decision in In re Inquiry Concerning
A Judge Alley, 699 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 1997). In that decision
the Florida Supreme Court sounded a warning to all judicial candidates
that it will take judicial campaign ethical violations seriously.
Judge Nancy Alley was reprimanded by the Court for judicial election
campaign violations. One of those violations was sending campaign
mailers that improperly included a portion of a newspaper editorial
which falsely implied that Alley, not her opponent, had been endorsed
by the newspaper. The Court stated "we find it difficult
to allow one guilty of such egregious conduct to retain the benefits
of those violations and remain in office. Yet, we are constrained
by the JQC's recommendation." The Supreme Court is no longer
constrained by the JQC's recommendation. Prior to the 1996 amendment
to Art. V, §12, of the Florida Constitution, the Florida
Supreme Court's "constitutional prerogative" in judicial
disciplinary proceedings was "limited to approving or reducing
the disciplinary recommendations of the JQC." In re Inquiry
concerning a Judge Fowler, 602 So.2d 510 (Fla. 1992). In 1996,
Art. V. §12, Fla. Const., was amended to allow the Supreme
Court to modify the recommendations of the JQC. In re Inquiry
Concerning a Judge Alley, 699 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 1997). Therefore,
the Florida Supreme Court is no longer bound by the disciplinary
recommendations of the JQC and may now impose a harsher sanction
than recommended by the JQC.
Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canons: 7, 7A(3)(d)(ii) and (iii).
Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinions: 94-16 and 94-35.
In re Inquiry Concerning A Judge Alley, 699 So.2d 1369
(Fla. 1997).
In re Inquiry concerning a Judge Fowler, 602 So.2d 510
(Fla. 1992).
ACLU of Fla. Inc. v. The Florida Bar, 744 F. Supp. 1094 (N.D. Fla. 1990).
Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, Section 4-8.2(a) & (b).
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, Chair,
Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, Moore Justice Center, 2825
Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida, 32940-8006.
Participating Members: Judges Dell, C. Kahn, L. Kahn, Patterson, Rodriguez, Rushing, Smith, Swartz, Tolton.
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)