|
During an election campaign, Judge Mary
Howard and her challenger appear at the same electoral
forum. They are questioned by the media and try to
respond ethically to the questions posed. Decide which
answers are allowable and which are not under the
New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct.
Important Notice On Political Campaign
Ethics Rules
THE
FOLLOWING TRAINING MATERIAL MAY BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER
INTERPRETATION IN LIGHT OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
RULING ON PUBLIC STATEMENTS BY CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL
OFFICE.
The
United States Supreme Court has invalidated a Minnesota
judicial ethics rule that prohibits a judicial candidate
from “announc[ing] his or her views on disputed
legal or political issues.” Republican
Party of Minnesota v. White, No. 01-521, issued June 27,
2002. The Court determined that prohibiting a candidate
for election to judicial office from expressing publicly
his or her views on matters of interest to the electorate
is a deprivation of the candidate’s First Amendment
rights and undermines the electoral process.
The implications for
New Mexico’s campaign
ethics rules are not clear. The language of our corresponding
rule is not exactly like that of Minnesota. The New
Mexico rule, 21-700 B (4), states that candidates
for contested judicial offices may not:
(a) make pledges or promises of conduct in office
other than the faithful and impartial performance
of the duties of the office;
(b) make statements that commit or appear to commit
the candidate with respect to cases, controversies
or issues that are likely to come before the court;
(c) announce how the candidate would rule on any
case or issue that may come before the court.
Any of these provisions
might be subject to challenge under the Court’s reasoning in White, because
the Court declared that “candidates for election
to judicial office have a First Amendment right to
discuss their positions on legal and political issues
during political campaigns, even to the point of
addressing specific topics.”
A Supreme Court-appointed committee has recommended
changes to our rule based upon recommendations developed
by the American Bar Association, but as of this writing
these proposals are still under discussion. Where
the lines will be drawn to prevent the political
process from affecting the integrity of the judicial
process will not be clear until the New Mexico Supreme
Court adopts a final rule. Select
a reporter to ask a question. |
