Rule 4.1. Political Activities of Judges in

Political Activities of Judges in General (a) Except as permitted by law, or by Rules 4.2 and 4.3, a judge shall not: (1) act as a leader in, or hold an office in, a political organization; (2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization; 83 (3) publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for any public office; (4) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or a candidate for public office; (5) attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a political organization or a candidate for public office; (6) seek, accept, or use endorsements from a political organization; (7) knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false or misleading statement in connection with the appointment or reappointment process; (8) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court; or (9) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office. (b) A judge shall take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake, on behalf of the judge, any activities prohibited under subsection (a). (c) A judge should not engage in any other political activity except on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. (Effective Jan. 1, 2011.) COMMENT: General Considerations (1) Even when subject to reappointment or when seeking elevation to a higher office, a judge plays a role different from that of a legislator or executive branch official. Rather than making decisions based on the expressed views or preferences of the public, a judge makes decisions based on the law and the facts of every case. Therefore, in furtherance of this interest, judges must, to the greatest extent possible, be free and appear to be free from political influence and political pressure. This Canon imposes narrowly tailored restrictions on the political activities of all judges and sitting judges seeking reappointment or appointment to a higher judicial office. Participation in Political Activities (2) Public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if judges are perceived to be subject to political influence. Although judges may register to vote as members of a political party, they are prohibited by subsection (a) (1) from assuming leadership roles in political organizations. (3) Subsections (a) (2) and (a) (3) prohibit judges from making speeches on behalf of political organizations or publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, respectively, to prevent them from abusing the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of others. See Rule 1.3. (4) Although members of the families of judges are free to engage in their own political activity, including running for public office, there is no ‘‘family exception’’ to the prohibition Rule 4.1 in subsection (a) (3) against a judge publicly endorsing candidates for public office. A judge must not become involved in, or publicly associated with, a family member’s political activity or campaign for public office. To avoid public misunderstanding, judges should take, and should urge members of their families to take, reasonable steps to avoid any implication that they endorse any family member’s candidacy or other political activity. (5) Judges retain the right to participate in the political process as voters in both primary and general elections. Statements and Comments Made By a Sitting Judge When Seeking Reappointment for Judicial Office or Elevation to a Higher Judicial Office (6) Judges must be scrupulously fair and accurate in all statements made by them. Subsection (a) (7) obligates judges to refrain from making statements that are false or misleading or that omit facts necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially misleading. (7) Judges are sometimes the subject of false, misleading, or unfair allegations made by third parties or the media. For example, false or misleading statements might be made regarding the identity, present position, experience, qualifications, or judicial rulings of a judge. In other situations, false or misleading allegations may be made that bear on a judge’s integrity or fitness for judicial office. As long as the judge does not violate subsection (a) (7), (a) (8), or (a) (9), the judge may make a factually accurate public response. See Rule 2.10. (8) Subject to subsection (a) (8), a judge is permitted to respond directly to false, misleading, or unfair allegations made against him or her, although it is preferable for someone else to respond if the allegations relate to a pending case. (9) Subsection (a) (8) prohibits judges from making comments that might impair the fairness of pending or impending judicial proceedings. This provision does not restrict rulings, statements, or instructions by a judge that may appropriately affect the outcome of a matter. Pledges, Promises, or Commitments Inconsistent with Impartial Performance of the Adjudicative Duties of Judicial Office (10) The role of a judge is different from that of a legislator or executive branch official. Sitting judges seeking reappointment or elevation must conduct themselves differently from persons seeking other offices. Narrowly drafted restrictions on the activities of judges provided in Canon 4 allow judges to provide the appointing authority with sufficient information to permit it to make an informed decision. (11) Subsection (a) (9) makes applicable to judges the prohibition that applies to judges in Rule 2.10 (b), relating to pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office. (12) The making of a pledge, promise, or commitment is not dependent on, or limited to, the use of any specific words or phrases; instead, the totality of the statement must be examined to determine if a reasonable person would believe that the judge has specifically undertaken to reach a particular result. Pledges, promises, or commitments must be contrasted with statements or announcements of personal views on legal, political, or other issues, which are not prohibited. When making such statements, a judge should acknowledge the overarching judicial obligation to apply and uphold the law, without regard to his or her personal views. 84 (13) A judge may make promises related to judicial organization, administration, and court management, such as a promise to dispose of a backlog of cases, start court sessions on time, or avoid favoritism in appointments and hiring. A judge may also pledge to take action outside the courtroom, such as working toward an improved jury selection system or advocating for more funds to improve the physical plant and amenities of the courthouse. (14) Judges may receive questionnaires or requests for interviews from the media and from issue advocacy or other community organizations that seek to learn their views on disputed or controversial legal or political issues. Subsection (a) (13) does not specifically address judicial responses to such inquiries. Depending on the wording and format of such questionnaires, judges’ responses might be viewed as pledges, promises, or commitments to perform the adjudicative duties of office other than in an impartial way. To avoid violating subsection (a) (13), therefore, judges who respond to media and other inquiries should also give assurances that they will keep an open mind and will carry out their adjudicative duties faithfully and impartially. Judges who do not respond may state their reasons for not responding, such as the danger that answering might be perceived by a reasonable person as undermining a judge’s independence or impartiality or that it might lead to frequent disqualification. See Rule 2.11.