Florida Supreme Court advises Governor to fill judicial vacancy by appointment.  [Added 7/16/10]

    A county court judge submitted his resignation to the Governor, who accepted it on May 28, 2010.  The judge, however, had already qualified to run unopposed for reelection.  The qualifying period closed on April 30, 2010.  The judge apparently intended to resign, then resume service on the bench in February 2011 as a result of his reelection (as he was unopposed, his reelection was certain pursuant to Fla.Stat. sec. 105.051(1)(a).)  The Governor's letter to the Florida Supreme Court requesting an advisory opinion asked "whether the Governor’s constitutional responsibility to fill vacancies on circuit and county courts by appointment exists when a vacancy on such a court occurs after the conclusion of a qualifying period in which no candidates other than the incumbent judge have qualified for election."

    The Florida Supreme Court's response discussed constitutional provisions relating to the appointment and election of judges.  The Court summarized the issue before it as "whether an incumbent judge who had been reelected without opposition may then retire from office and leave a judgeship vacant for an extended period before resuming the duties of the office when it is convenient for him to do so."  Having so phrased the question, the Court essentially answered it in the negative.  "A judgeship is not an office that may be temporarily forsaken at will for personal benefit.  When a vacancy arises from such circumstances, the Governor may properly fill the vacancy by appointment pursuant to [Fla. Constit.] article V, section 11(b)."  Advisory Opinion to the Governor re: Judicial Vacancy Due to Resignation, __ So.3d ___ (Fla., No. SC10-1186, 7/12/2010).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addresses questions regarding campaign-related activities that judicial candidate's spouse may engage in.  [Added 7/12/10]

The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addressed a number of questions regarding campaign-related activities that a judicial candidate's spouse may engage in.  The Committee's conclusions are summarized below.

The judicial candidate’s spouse may be a member of a major political party’s executive committee, subject to the provisions of Canons 7A and 7C and so long as the candidate takes care not to inject partisan politics into the campaign.

The judicial candidate’s spouse may speak on behalf of the candidate outside of the political meetings of the political party’s executive committee, subject to the provisions of Canons 7A and 7C and so long as the candidate takes care not to inject partisan politics into the campaign.

The judicial candidate’s spouse may host lunches outside of any formal meetings of the political party’s executive committee for the spouse’s friends on the committee and at the same time campaign for the candidate, subject to the provisions of Canons 7A and 7C and so long as the candidate takes care not to inject partisan politics into the campaign.

The judicial candidate’s spouse may campaign for the candidate at non-political functions that the candidate and the spouse attend together, subject to the provisions of Canons 7A and 7C and so long as the candidate takes care not to inject partisan politics into the campaign.

The  the judicial candidate’s spouse may campaign for the candidate at functions that the candidate’s opponent and the candidate attend jointly and are asked to speak, subject to the provisions of Canons 7A and 7C and so long as the candidate takes care not to inject partisan politics into the campaign.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-22 (Election).

Judicial candidate may speak at "Tea Party" and "Patriot" gatherings, but only under limited conditions.  [Added 7/12/10]

The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee was asked by a judicial candidate whether it would be ethically permissible to speak at gatherings of local "Patriot" and "Tea Party" groups.  The candidate stated that each group advocates constitutional education, but the Committee concluded that the candidate should treat the gatherings of both of the groups as political party functions.  "Accordingly, the Committee believes that the candidate may speak at one of these functions only under the conditions described in Canon 7(3)(C), that is, the event is not a fundraiser, the other candidates for the position have been invited, and the candidate limits the presentation to the topics permitted by Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 7(3)(C)."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-19 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opines regarding judicial candidate's use of campaign managers and consultants.  [Added 7/7/10]

In 2 advisory opinions the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addressed questions concerning use of campaign managers and consultants by judicial candidates.

A judicial candidate ethically may not have a volunteer campaign manager who is is an officer of a partisan political party, even if the person will not campaign for the candidate while engaged in partisan activities.  "The candidate recognizes that the committee has previously held that a judicial candidate may not hire an executive officer of a partisan political committee as the judicial candidate’s campaign manager or consultant.  Fla. JEAC Op. 08-16.  The only difference between the established precedent, as reflected in the above-cited opinion, and this inquiry is that the executive officer of the partisan political party would be a volunteer rather than being hired by the candidate’s campaign.  There is no material difference in this inquiry which would lead to a different conclusion than that held in Fla. JEAC Op. 08-16."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-21 (Election).

A judicial candidate, however, ethically may use as a campaign consultant a sitting member of the county commission who is not currently running for office or asserting any political party view in support of any other non-judicial or judicial candidate.  (The Committee assumed for purposes of its opinion that the consultant "is not an executive officer of a partisan political committee.")  The Committee concluded:  "[W]e find no basis for a per se rule forbidding other, nonjudicial officeholders – who are not themselves candidates in the same election cycle, are not acting on behalf of any partisan organization, and are not presenting judicial candidates to the public as a group – to serve as campaign managers for judicial candidates."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-18 (Election).

Judge's campaign may not use photo of judge receiving award with Florida Supreme Court justices watching.  [Added 7/710]

    The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee concluded that a judge campaigning for election to the bench may not use a photo of the judge receiving the "Distinguished Judicial Service Award"  while standing at a lectern in the well of the Florida Supreme Court with several justices shown in the photo "seated at the bench apparently listening intently."  The Committee noted that "it is apparently of no moment that the photograph depicts an historical event and was not staged for campaign purposes."  Furthermore, the Committee observed that Canon 7A(1)(b) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct forbids judges from endorsing any candidate for office in any way.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-18 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee discusses when relatives of judicial candidates may solicit contributions and endorsements.  [Added 6/28/2010]

    Judge is running for reelection in a contested election.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible for Judge's brothers, mother-in-law, and cousins, who are members of the committee of responsible persons supporting Judge's campaign, to solicit contributions and endorsements in support of the judge's election.

    Canon 7C(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds, but allows them to establish committees of responsible  persons to raise funds and to obtain public statements of support for the campaign.  The Code defines a member of the judge’s or candidate’s family to include “a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative or person with whom the judge maintains a close familial relationship.”  A judicial candidate must encourage these family members to refrain from personally soliciting campaign contributions.  See Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 08-09.

    In Judge's situation, however, the relatives in question are brothers, mother-in-law, and cousins.  Although these persons are not within the definition of a judge's family as provided in the Code, the Committee concluded that "if the judge 'maintains a close familial relationship' with any of the persons identified, then that person would also fall within the admonition of Canon 7A(3)(b)."  Consequently, "if the judge maintains a close familial relationship with the family member identified, the judge must encourage that person to refrain from soliciting contributions and endorsements.  If the judge does not maintain a close familial relationship with the family member identified, then the judge is not required to encourage that person to refrain from soliciting contributions and endorsements."

    The Committee also addressed a question of whether Judge's spouse may attend, but not campaign at, a political party dinner event.  The Committee concluded:  "[A]lthough is it is permissible for a judge's spouse to attend a political party event for the spouse's own reasons, so long as the spouse does not campaign in any way for the judge, such attendance exposes the judge to the charge that the spouse's attendance at the event was for the prohibited purpose of campaigning for the judge.  If such a charge is made, the resolution of such charge will depend, upon other things, upon the imprecise memories of the attendees at a possibly helter-skelter, boisterous political party event."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-16 (Election).

Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issues opinion regarding judicial election practices.  [Added 6/18/10]

    The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee published an opinion addressing a number of ethics questions that might arise in a judicial election campaign.  Below is a summary of the conclusions reached by the Committee.

    A judicial candidate may not send an email inviting persons to attend a fundraiser for the candidate’s campaign and personally encourage persons to attend the fundraiser.  (See Canon 7C(1), Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.)

    A judicial candidate may not, in answering questions by voters as to what criteria they should use to evaluate candidates for judicial office, indicate that the candidate agrees with the criteria used by a named United States President in nominating identified justices of the United States Supreme Court.  (See Canon 7C(3).)

    A judicial candidate, or members of the candidate's campaign committee, may participate in a walk-a-thon to raise funds for a charitable organization and may wear a shirt advertising the campaign while doing so.  (See Canon 2, Canon 5.)

    A judicial candidate may accept an endorsement from a non-judicial elected official who is not campaigning for election, but only if the partisan aspects of the official’s position are not mentioned.  If the candidate accepts an endorsement from a non-judicial elected official, the judicial candidate may: (i) advertise the endorsement on the judicial candidate's campaign website; (ii) advertise the endorsement in printed campaign advertisements; and (iii) discuss the endorsement in a campaign speech or other public forum.  (See Canon 7A(1)(b).)

    A judicial candidate may not accept an endorsement from a non-judicial candidate for elected office.

    A judicial candidate many not place an advertisement on the side of a moving advertising truck which would also display other advertisements for other candidates for elected office.

    A judicial candidate may purchase tent space with funds drawn from the campaign account made out to the organizer of the county fair, and share space in the tent alongside other candidates for judicial or non-judicial elected office, but only if the sharing of tent space with other candidates is done in a manner which does not create an appearance that the judicial candidate is running as part of a slate or as a member of a political party.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-14 (Election).

Florida Supreme Court reprimands judge for ethical violations during her election campaign.  [Added 2/5/10]

    The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission brought formal charges against Judge.  She was accused of ethics violations during her election campaign.  Specifically, Judge was charged with:  (1) using an ad urging voters to "re-elect" her, when in reality Judge had been appointed rather than elected to the bench; and (2) stating in an ad that she had "20 years of legal experience" when she did not.  Judge stipulated to these facts.  This conduct violated Canon 7A(3)(d)(ii) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.

    The Florida Supreme Court stated:  "Canon 7A(3)(d)(ii) is intended to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and maintain the public's confidence in a fair, impartial, and independent judiciary.  It is clear that a member of the judiciary or judicial candidate should not mislead the public by placing factually incorrect statements in campaign materials.  . . .  [T]he misleading information contained within Judge []'s campaign materials was placed within the materials deliberately and was done for the purpose of bolstering her own experience and credibility to the voting public.  Without a doubt, Judge []'s conduct was wholly inappropriate."  The Court ordered that Judge be publicly reprimanded before the Court.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Nos. 08-392, 08-360 re: Angela Dempsey, 29 So.3d 1030 (Fla. 2010).

Governor must appoint a judicial nominee from the names submitted by the Judicial Nominating Commission, per Florida Supreme Court.  [Added 7/6/09]  --  Pleus v. Crist, 14 So.3d 941 (Fla. 2009).

Supreme Court advises Governor that suspended lawyer who was elected to circuit judgeship is not eligible to take judicial office.  [Added 2/4/09]  --  Advisory Opinion to the Governor re: Commission of Elected Judge, 17 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2009).

Judicial candidate may not hire campaign consultant who is running for office as partisan political candidate or is executive officer of political party.  [Added 9/6/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-16 (Election).

Judicial candidate may use title "Administrative Law Judge" when describing experience with Division of Administrative Hearings.  [Added 7/3/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-15 (Election).

Judicial candidate ethically may sign pledge to strive for diversity in discretionary appointments, per Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.  [Added 6/30/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-14 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee discusses common campaign questions raised by sitting judge seeking re-election.  [Added 5/21/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-11 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addresses use of "judge" and judicial robe by judicial candidate who previously was circuit judge.  [Added 5/21/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-10 (Election).  NOTE:  The Committee applied a similar analysis to judges who have retired from the circuit bench and currently holding senior status.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-13 (Election).

Judge's parents may not send out letters supporting judge's re-election bid and soliciting campaign funds.  [Added 4/4/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-09 (Election).

Judge whose spouse is running for non-partisan public office may not attend spouse's "meet and greet" campaign gatherings, even at judge's home.  [Added 9/25/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-13 (September 14, 2007).

Judge-elect may maintain law partnership bank account to receive outstanding fees during winding-up of partnership.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-31.

Judge who is not candidate may attend community-sponsored, non-partisan function in order to socialize and hear candidates' speeches.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2006-25.

Judicial candidate may use endorsement of retired judge in ads only if retired judge is not eligible for recall.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-24 (Election).

Not unethical for judicial candidate to accept and advertise endorsement from elected partisan official, if endorsement provided in official's individual capacity.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-21 (Election).

Judge running for re-election limited in using favorable remarks from juror questionnaires in campaign literature.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-20 (Election).

Ethically impermissible for judge to attend political function sponsored by political party, even merely as spectator.   Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-19 (Election).

Not unethical for judicial candidate to respond to questionnaires seeking candidate's views on certain political issues and recent court decisions.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-18 (Election).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opines on questions presented by sitting magistrate who is running for judicial position.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-16 (Election).

Judicial candidate may not attend "round up" sponsored by political party women's group, where candidates are not invited to speak.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-15 (Election).

Judge's campaign ad may include family photo with spouse who is also a judge, but spouse may not accompany judge to campaign appearances.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-13 (Election).

Judge may not authorize placement of sign for partisan political candidate on property or auto owned by judge and judge's spouse.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-11.

Person who "pre-qualifies" for judicial race is "candidate" and thus may not serve as advisory to political party or accept party's help in gathering petition signatures.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-08.

Florida Supreme Court amends Judicial Code Canon 7 on public statements by judicial candidates concerning pending cases.  Amendment to Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 7 (Political Activity), 897 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 2005).

Improper endorsement for judicial candidate to attend church services with incumbent judge and be introduced as incumbent's "friend and guest."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-30 (Election).

Judicial candidate's letter seeking information about incumbent's health would be "campaign literature" and thus not subject to advisory opinion.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-25.

Judge ethically precluded from commenting on reasons for ruling on motion by election opponent, or on opponent's conduct in case, where case is pending before judge.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-19 (Election).

Unopposed judicial election candidate may attend and speak at political party club meetings, within bounds of Canon 7.  Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2004-11 (Election).

Judicial candidate may not directly or indirectly seek political party's endorsement, but may comment on disputed legal or political issues with appropriate qualifying language.  Florida Judicial Advisory Opinion 2004-09 (Election).

Judge publicly reprimanded for participation in partisan political events in violation of Florida law and Code of Judicial Conduct.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re: Carven D. Angel, 867 So.2d 379 (Fla. 2004).  NOTE:  The Court’s opinion did not address the constitutionality of the restrictions on a campaigning judge’s activity that are contained in Fla. Stat. sec. 105.071 and Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 7.  The Court, however, previously indicated that the decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) did not affect the validity of Florida's Canon 7.  Inquiry Concerning a Judge, re: Patricia Kinsey, 842 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2003).  Additionally, the Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has declined to address the constitutionality of the Code because doing so would be beyond its authority.  See Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2003-13.

Circuit judge running for re-election may not solicit lawyers for public or financial support despite Weaver v. Bonner.  Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-07 (Election).