Opinion 25-47
March 27, 2025
Digest: A judge seeking re-election may neither redact the names of defendants from the voter rolls nor otherwise instruct campaign workers to avoid requesting signatures for the judge’s petition from eligible voters merely because they are currently defendants in the judge’s court.
Rules: Election Law § 17-122; Judiciary Law § 212(2)(l); 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(B); 100.5(A)(2); Opinions 19-98; 15-145; 15-112/15-146; 11-65; 99-125; 89-89.
Opinion:
The inquiring judge is within his/her window period for re-election and is currently passing petitions to place his/her name on the ballot.[1] The campaign workers assisting the judge may also be collecting signatures for other candidates. The judge noticed that the list of registered voters includes some individuals who are currently defendants in the judge’s court. The judge believes there would be an “obvious undue pressure on the defendants” to sign the judge’s petition, but is concerned that “there may be a court confidentiality issue” if some voters are flagged as defendants. The judge asks if he/she should redact defendants’ names from the voter list and/or “explicitly instruct other helpers not to solicit signatures” for the judge’s petition from them.
A judge or non-judge candidate for election to judicial office may participate in his/her own campaign during the applicable window period, subject to limitations (see 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][2]). For example, a judicial candidate may carry joint and/or individual petitions that name him/her and may personally request signatures on such petitions (see Opinion 15-145) and may also permit others to do so on his/her behalf (see e.g. Opinion 15-112/15-146). A sitting judge, whether running for election or not, must of course avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and thus, among other things, must not allow political relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[B]).
The present inquiry is a matter of first impression for us, as soliciting signatures for a nominating or designating petition is different from soliciting endorsements.[2] We have recognized that “signing an election petition is an act akin to voting rather than to campaigning” and have thus advised that a judge may sign a petition to place names of individuals on an electoral ballot in any year, whether or not the judge is standing for election (Opinion 99-125; see also Opinion 89-89).
In our view, if the judge and his/her campaign workers use the list of eligible registered voters without restriction or censorship from the judge, they will simply be seeking support from all voters equally (including the defendants), rather than treating defendants differently solely because they have been sued civilly or charged with a crime. We note that individuals the judge may happen to recognize as current litigants on the voter roll should not be singled out for special treatment in the process of collecting signatures; they should not be excluded or targeted.
Accordingly, we conclude the inquiring judge may not redact the names of specific voters from voter rolls when collecting petition signatures merely because such voters are also appearing as defendants in the judge’s court. Nor may the judge identify defendants to those who are circulating petitions on the judge’s behalf and instruct them to not solicit signatures for the judge’s petition from such defendants.[3]
We cannot comment on any legal questions or limitations related to the petitioning process (see Judiciary Law § 212[2][l]; see also e.g. Election Law § 17-122).
[1] The inquirer did not specify whether it is a nominating petition, designating petition, or opportunity to ballot petition, but the distinction is immaterial here.
[2] While a judge may personally solicit endorsements in most instances, we have imposed some limits where “it will be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid an appearance of undue pressure” (Opinion 19-98; see also Opinion 11-65).
[3] We concur with the judge that he/she should avoid even the appearance of undue pressure or coercion when passing petitions, but the judge must do so in an appropriate manner, such as by treating all eligible registered voters alike with courtesy and respect, rather than by excluding some of them from the petitioning process in advance based solely on their status as litigants.