Posted 10-19-06

I am currently a judicial candidate in New York state, and I am aware this year of the increased emphasis on campaign ethics. For instance, all judicial candidates have to undergo mandatory ethics training. But are there really any teeth to these ethics rules? What are the consequences if they are violated?
 
The preamble of the "Rules Governing Judicial Conduct" clearly states that the rules are "rules of reason." It goes on to emphasize that they are "designed to provide guidance to judges and candidates for elective judicial office and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies," but that they are not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution."

In other words, a judge or judicial candidate cannot get thrown into jail or hauled into court for committing an ethics violation. That is not what the rules are meant to achieve. Neither are they meant to aid judicial candidates in muckraking campaigns against opponents. They are instead in place in order to maintain the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and to increase the public's confidence in the judiciary. In fact, the reason for the increased emphasis on campaign ethics in this year's judicial campaigns is to help increase the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial selection process.
 
Ethics rules are not there to help judicial candidates nail each other for every small infraction or to make judicial candidates too nervous to campaign. They are instead there to help guide candidates in maintaining ethical conduct. Resources such as ethics advisory opinions from the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics and from the New York State Bar Association should also help guide candidates' conduct. Candidates truly interested in the dignity and the integrity of judicial office should want to abide by the rules rather than seeing them as a burden.
 
The rules specifically state that while they are meant to guide the conduct of judges and judicial candidates, they are not meant to result in disciplinary action for every minor infraction. If, however, a candidate commits clear and blatant violations — specifically 22 NYCRR 100.5, which governs campaign conduct — several consequences are in play.
 
The body that imposes discipline for the violation of ethics rules is the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.  It might consider the filing by a complainant or act oninformation that comes to its attention from some other source, such as a newspaper article. This is why media scrutiny is so important in judicial elections. The commission will investigate the complaint and decide whether or not to proceed with a hearing. If after a hearing the charges are found to be true, the commission will determine whether to take disciplinary action, which ranges from admonishment to public censure and even disbarrment.

The hope is that the prospect of such disciplinary actions would dissuade a judicial candidate from unethical behavior. Overall, however, the ethics guidelines should be followed by persons running for judicial office because these persons wish to uphold the dignity of their prospective or current office, not because they fear discipline. While the rules are meant to be binding, one would hope that for those running for judicial office, those who will make up the judiciary of our state, these rules would be voluntarily followed, regardless of the teeth that the enforcement process might have.