The main list reflects judicial campaign ethics opinions that have been published in the past 12 to 18 months. A supplemental list provides some additional opinions issued since December 2019.
For ease of reference, certain multi-topic "omnibus" opinions are also listed together at the end of the page.
The Judicial Campaign Ethics Handbook provides an overview of additional pertinent rules and opinions. In addition, you may search or browse all published Advisory Committee opinions online (1987-present).
Recently Issued Opinions
Opinion 23-99 (released 9/7/23)
DIGEST: On these facts, as candidates for a non-judicial office have made the judge’s ethical obligations an issue in their election campaign and any attempt by the judge to correct the record will be readily perceived as partisan political activity, the judge must abstain from direct or indirect public comment on the situation.
Opinion 23-69 (released 6/15/23)
DIGEST: A judge who is a candidate for election or re-election may publicly identify themselves as “pro choice” or “pro life” during the applicable window period, provided the judge also makes clear that they will decide all cases fairly and impartially and in accordance with governing law.
Opinion 23-43 (released 3/23/23)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may appear in joint campaign advertisements only with candidates who make up the slate of which the judicial candidate is a part. Candidates are on the same slate if they (a) have been endorsed by the same political party and/or (b) will appear on the same political party’s ballot line.
Opinion 23-29 (released 3/23/23)
DIGEST: Subject to limitations on price and number of tickets, a candidate for election to judicial office may pay the lowest price offered to the general public, even if specially discounted tickets are made available to district leaders.
Opinion 22-155 (released 10/27/22)
DIGEST: A judge who is seeking election or re-election to judicial office may, during the applicable window period, record and post short videos on their personal social media accounts for the purpose of connecting with the public to highlight the judge’s qualifications for judicial office and provide educational content on alternate dispute resolution and mediation. At the end of the window period, the judge must remove the videos from all social media accounts.
Opinion 22-149 (released 10/27/22)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate, if elected, may appoint their campaign treasurer as their principal law clerk, provided that (1) any remaining duties of the treasurer are strictly ministerial and the treasurer is no longer involved in political fund-raising or other prohibited political activity at the time of the appointment and (2) the appointment is based on merit.
Opinion 22-129 (Amended) (released 9/8/22)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may not authorize a political party committee to solicit and accept campaign contributions on their behalf in lieu of forming a campaign committee.
Opinion 22-102 (released 6/30/22)
DIGEST: (1) Where a judge’s remaining unexpended campaign funds after conclusion of the window period are more than de minimis, but unusual circumstances make it significantly impracticable to return those funds pro rata to contributors, the judge may donate the entire amount to a not-for-profit entity that operates a childcare program at any courthouse of the Unified Court System for children of litigants in that court, with instructions that the funds be used for that purpose. (2) Unexpended campaign funds may not be used to commission a historical plaque for the courthouse.
Opinion 22-96 (released 6/30/22)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate or their campaign committee may post photographs on social media of the candidate together with sitting judges at a public or professional event, such as a bar association function, provided (a) the photograph was published with the consent of the judges, (b) there is no verbiage that indicates an endorsement, and (c) a caption makes clear that the judges depicted do not endorse the candidate’s judicial campaign.
Opinion 22-93 (released 6/30/22)
DIGEST: A candidate for elective judicial office may not provide free notary services to the public to promote their campaign.
Opinion 22-61 (released 5/5/22)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate who learns that their political party is circulating petitions naming them as a candidate for non-judicial office must request in writing that the party immediately cease circulating the petitions and advise that, if elected, the candidate will decline to serve. Once that is done, the candidate has no further obligation.
Opinion 22-60 (released 5/5/22)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may use a de minimis amount of campaign funds for a modest and reasonable “pre-thank you” party for campaign committee members, as a kick-off event for the campaign.
Opinion 22-38 (released 3/10/22)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may permit their spouse to serve on their campaign committee as treasurer or assistant treasurer, provided the candidate concludes their spouse is a responsible person who will abide by applicable law and ethical rules.
Additional Selected Opinions Issued
Please note: Multi-topic "omnibus" opinions are listed separately for ease of reference.
Opinion 21-128 (released 9/9/21)
DIGEST: (1) The window period for an individual seeking election to Supreme Court commences nine months before the earlier of (a) the date of formal nomination by convention; or (b) the date of a recognized party-sponsored caucus or committee meeting within the candidate’s judicial district held for the purpose of discussing or considering nominations of delegates to the judicial nominating convention, even if a resulting designation or endorsement would be subject to a subsequent contest. (2) If no date for such a meeting has yet been set, the candidate may assume that the previous year’s official date will be used again for the upcoming party meeting and then count back nine months from that presumed date.
Opinion 21-50 (released 3/11/21)
DIGEST: A judge who authorizes or knowingly permits their name to appear on a publicly circulated nominating petition as a candidate for nonjudicial office is a “candidate” under the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and thus must resign from judicial office. If the judge does not wish their name to appear on the nominating petitions, the judge must object in writing to the appropriate political party leaders.
Opinion 21-40 (released 3/11/21)
DIGEST: Subject to generally applicable limitations on campaign speech and conduct, a judicial candidate may permit their campaign committee to establish a Twitter account for campaign purposes and use it to “follow” the judge’s election opponent and/or other candidates on Twitter during the window period.
Opinion 21-36 (released 3/11/21)
DIGEST: A judge who purchased and used wooden frames for lawn signs in a now-concluded judicial campaign: (1) may not lend or donate the frames for use in another candidate’s campaign but (2) may use the frames in the judge’s own future campaign(s) for judicial office.
Opinion 21-30 (released 3/11/21)
DIGEST: Provided a judicial candidate determines they will receive fair value for the expenditure, the candidate may permit their campaign committee to purchase subscriptions during the window period to a web-based service that (1) provides information on potential donors for use by the candidate’s campaign committee for a flat monthly fee and/or (2) allows the judge’s campaign committee to communicate live with voters by telephone or text for a flat per-call fee.
Opinion 20-111 (released 9/10/20)
DIGEST: Judicial candidates may attend virtual political fund-raising events during their window period, subject to the usual limitations on price and number of tickets, provided they attend and appear on screen along with other attendees.
Opinion 20-83 (released 6/18/20)
DIGEST: A Supreme Court candidate may write a letter asking voters to vote in a primary election for a judicial delegate who will support his/her nomination but must make clear that his/her endorsement of the delegate is for the purpose of furthering his/her own candidacy for Supreme Court. This information should be contained in the body of the letter; a notation at the very bottom of the page, in a much smaller font than the rest of the letter, is insufficient.
Opinion 19-119 (released 10/24/19)
DIGEST: Where a political action committee’s endorsement is conditioned on the candidate’s pledge, promise or commitment (a) not to seek or accept a specified political party’s nomination and (b) to disregard the law by “unequivocally support[ing]” access to certain regulated medical procedures or devices “unimpeded by laws, restrictions, or regulations,” a judicial candidate must decline the entity’s endorsement. On these facts, the candidate also must not attend the entity’s fund-raiser featuring its endorsed candidates.
Opinion 19-112 (released 10/24/19)
DIGEST: Judicial candidates must take particular care to ascertain the truth of all claims they make about their election opponents and make every effort to avoid misleading the public with mere speculation or innuendo. Thus, a candidate may not (1) unjustly characterize an election opponent’s prior removal from the ballot as an inability to “follow the law” and/or a “flagrant disregard for the law” or (2) present hypothetical scenarios incorrectly suggesting unfavorable litigation outcomes that can only result from a judge’s failure to “follow the law” or other judicial misconduct.
Opinion 19-109 (released 10/24/19)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may pay his/her proportionate share of the actual expenses for a “petition signing party,” at which modest and reasonable refreshments are served, for the purpose of assembling registered voters to sign petitions, provided he/she concludes the campaign will receive fair value for the expenditure. However, the candidate must only circulate or request signatures on petitions as permitted by prior opinions.
Opinion 19-94(A) (released 10/24/19)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may allow an individual to host a joint fund-raiser for him/her and two other judicial candidates, but the attendees must write separate checks to each candidate’s campaign committee.
Opinion 19-94(B) (released 12/12/19)
DIGEST: A judicial candidate may not permit a political action committee to host a joint fund-raiser for him/her and another candidate.
Recent Multi-Topic Omnibus Opinions
Opinion 22-102 (released 6/30/22)
DIGEST: (1) Where a judge’s remaining unexpended campaign funds after conclusion of the window period are more than de minimis, but unusual circumstances make it significantly impracticable to return those funds pro rata to contributors, the judge may donate the entire amount to a not-for-profit entity that operates a childcare program at any courthouse of the Unified Court System for children of litigants in that court, with instructions that the funds be used for that purpose.
(2) Unexpended campaign funds may not be used to commission a historical plaque for the courthouse.
Opinion 21-128 (released 9/9/21)
DIGEST: (1) The window period for an individual seeking election to Supreme Court commences nine months before the earlier of (a) the date of formal nomination by convention; or (b) the date of a recognized party-sponsored caucus or committee meeting within the candidate’s judicial district held for the purpose of discussing or considering nominations of delegates to the judicial nominating convention, even if a resulting designation or endorsement would be subject to a subsequent contest.
(2) If no date for such a meeting has yet been set, the candidate may assume that the previous year’s official date will be used again for the upcoming party meeting and then count back nine months from that presumed date.
Opinion 21-36 (released 3/11/21)
DIGEST: A judge who purchased and used wooden frames for lawn signs in a now-concluded judicial campaign:
(1) may not lend or donate the frames for use in another candidate’s campaign but
(2) may use the frames in the judge’s own future campaign(s) for judicial office.
Opinion 21-30 (released 3/11/21)
DIGEST: Provided a judicial candidate determines they will receive fair value for the expenditure, the candidate may permit their campaign committee to purchase subscriptions during the window period to a web-based service that
(1) provides information on potential donors for use by the candidate’s campaign committee for a flat monthly fee and/or
(2) allows the judge’s campaign committee to communicate live with voters by telephone or text for a flat per-call fee.
Opinion 19-112 (released 10/24/19)
DIGEST: Judicial candidates must take particular care to ascertain the truth of all claims they make about their election opponents and make every effort to avoid misleading the public with mere speculation or innuendo. Thus, a candidate may not (1) unjustly characterize an election opponent’s prior removal from the ballot as an inability to “follow the law” and/or a “flagrant disregard for the law” or
(2) present hypothetical scenarios incorrectly suggesting unfavorable litigation outcomes that can only result from a judge’s failure to “follow the law” or other judicial misconduct.
Joint Opinion 16-29/16-50 (released 9/8/16)
DIGEST: (1) A candidate whose remaining unexpended campaign funds total $2,500 or less at the end of the window period may immediately treat those funds as de minimis without first attempting to return the funds pro rata to contributors.
(2) A candidate whose remaining unexpended campaign funds exceed $2,500 must make one reasonable, bona fide attempt to return all the funds pro rata to contributors. Any funds remaining following this effort may be treated as de minimis.
(3) De minimis campaign funds, as defined above, may be used after conclusion of the window period as follows, to the extent legally permitted:
(a) they may be expended for any lawful non-political purpose connected to judicial office, such as the purchase of judicial robes, office supplies, computer software or books; or
(b) they may be donated to the Catalyst Public Service Fellowship Program; or
(c) subject to any necessary administrative approvals, they may be used to purchase books or other reference materials to be donated to the courthouse law libraries.
(4) The Committee declines to address whether unexpended campaign funds may be donated to the Unified Court System, absent resolution of the legal and administrative policy issues involved.