Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 92-011

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 92-11
Issued April 10, 1992
[Former CJC Opinion-provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which is superseded by the
Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. 3/1/2009.]
[Not Current- subsequent rule amendments to Canon 7, Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct]
SYLLABUS: An incumbent judge may sign Nominating Petitions or Declaration of Candidacy
petitions for judicial candidates and or candidates for partisan political office. The question is not
answered differently if the judge signing the petition is also a candidate for a judicial office.
An incumbent judge may attend a political dinner, sit at the speaker's table and be introduced as a
judge, but he or she should not formally introduce a partisan candidate even though such
introduction is limited to stating the candidate's name and the office sought without comment upon
the candidate's qualifications for such office.
OPINION: This opinion addresses political and campaign issues faced by incumbent judges.
1. May an incumbent judge sign Nominating Petitions or Declarations of
Candidacy petitions for judicial candidates and or candidates for partisan
political office? Is the question answered differently if the judge signing the
petition is also a candidate for a judicial office?
2. May an incumbent judge who is a candidate for re-election attend a political
dinner, sit at the speaker's table and formally introduce a partisan candidate
where such introduction is limited to stating the name of the candidate and the
office sought without comment upon the candidate's qualifications for such
office?
Question 1
Canon 7 broadly proclaims that "A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity Inappropriate to
Judicial Office." The separation of a judge from political activities is necessary to assure the public
of an independent judiciary. To this end Canon 7A restricts political conduct by both incumbent
judges and candidates for judicial office.

Op. 92-11 2
Canon 7A. Political Conduct in General.
(1) An incumbent judge, or a candidate for judicial office, should not:
(a) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;
(b) make speeches for a political organization or candidate at a political meeting
or publicly endorse a candidate for public office. (Emphasis added).
At issue is whether a judge's signature on a Nominating Petition or on a Declaration of Candidacy
constitutes a public endorsement of another candidate for public office for purposes of Canon 7A
(l) (b). The Board could find no advisory opinions addressing the precise issue. Nor is there case
law on the issue.
Commentary to Canon 7A (l) (b) states that "[a] candidate does not publicly endorse another
candidate for public office by having his or her name on the same ticket or attending a fundraising
event for a candidate." Beyond this, there is no guidance within the Code as to what constitutes a
public endorsement.
State ethics committees have offered the following advice: A judge offering his or her home for a
reception for a partisan candidate for public office is tantamount to a public endorsement. State Bar
of Michigan, Informal Op. CI-778 (1982); A judge allowing his or her home to be used to host a
"Meet the Candidate" party for a governor during an election year could be viewed as a political
endorsement. Kansas Sup. Ct, JE-33 (1990); A judge writing a letter to a local newspaper to
support a judicial candidate during a retention election constitutes a public endorsement of a
candidate for public office, Alaska Bar Ass'n, Op. 88-5 (1988). This Board has expressed the view
that a contribution by a candidate for judicial office to another candidate should not be considered a
public endorsement. Ohio Sup.Ct, Bd. of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 88-17
(1988).
However, the above cited opinions provide little guidance in determining the issue addressed.
Instead, the Board must examine the language and purpose of a Nominating Petition and a
Declaration of Candidacy. A signature on a Nominating Petition is a declaration of the statement
set forth below.

Op. 92-11 3
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the State of Ohio, whose voting residence
is in the County, City, Village, Ward, Township, or Precinct set opposite our names,
hereby nominate___________as a Candidate for election to the office
of______________in ___________ County for the:  full term commencing
___________ or  unexpired term ending__________, to be voted for at the next
general election, and certify this person is, in our opinion, well qualified to perform
the duties of the office or position to which he/she desires to be elected.
A signature on a Declaration of Candidacy Party Primary Election for County Office similarly
declares:
We, the undersigned, qualified electors of the State of Ohio, whose voting residence
is in the county, city, village, ward, township, and precinct set opposite our names,
and members of the_________________ Party, hereby certify that___________,
whose declaration of candidacy is filed herewith, is a member of
the______________ Party, and is, in our opinion, well qualified to perform the
duties of the office or position to which he/she desires to be elected.
Thus, a signature on either petition is a statement that the person seeking office is, in the signer's
opinion, well qualified to perform the duties of the office or position to which he or she desires to
be elected. The notable difference between the two petitions is that the Declaration of Candidacy
has the additional requirement that the person signing must state his or her political party and must
be of the same political party as the candidate.
A statement that an individual is qualified to perform certain duties is not a statement of support for
a candidate for public office. It is merely a statement regarding qualification. In fact, the signature
cannot logically be construed as a public endorsement of a candidate for public office since a
person signing a petition might possibly sign petitions for several different individuals running for
the same office. Further, the requirement on the Declaration of Candidacy that the signer state his
or her political party does not present an obstacle since the Code of Judicial Conduct does not
prohibit a judge from remaining a member of a political party, nor from answering such question
honestly when asked. Thus, the Board's opinion is that an incumbent judge may sign Nominating
Petitions and or Declaration of Candidacy petitions for judicial candidates and or candidates for
partisan political office. The Board finds no rationale for answering the question differently if the
judge signing the petition is also a candidate for a judicial office.

Op. 92-11 4
The Board does not find this conclusion to be inconsistent with Opinion 91-29 in which the Board
advised that a judge should not endorse a candidate for elective office of a bar association by
allowing his or her name, with or without the designation that the individual is a judge, to be
included on a list of supporters of the candidate which would be circulated to members of the bar
association since such endorsement lends the prestige of the judge's office to advance the private
interests of others and creates an appearance of impropriety in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct. Ohio Sup.Ct. Bd. of Comm'rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 91-29 (1991).
That opinion is distinguishable for several reasons: the signature was to be on a letter of support;
the letter was to be circulated to members of a bar association; and the Board found no support in
the Code or elsewhere for finding an elective office in a bar association to be a "public office"
within the meaning of Canon 7A (l) (b), nor for finding a bar association election to be the type of
political activity to which Canon 7 is directed. Id.
Question 2
"Canon 7 involves compromises between political reality and the aim of maintaining the
appearance of judicial impartiality." E. Thode, Reporter’s Notes to Code of Judicial Conduct, 96
(1973). Thus, although Canon 7A (1) restricts political conduct by both incumbent judges and
candidates for judicial office, it provides some leniency in Canon 7A (3) for incumbents and
candidates to engage in political activity for purposes of candidacy.
Canon 7A(3) An incumbent judge, or a candidate for judicial office, may attend
political gatherings and may identify himself or herself as a member of a political
party. He or she may speak to such political gatherings on his or her own behalf
when he or she is a candidate for election or re-election.
Attendance at a political dinner would clearly fall within the permissible activity allowed by Canon
7A (3) and would be permissible even if such dinner were a fund-raising event. See Commentary
to 7A (l) (b) stating that "[a] candidate does not publicly endorse another candidate for public office
by attending a fund-raising event for a candidate."
What is less clear is the application of this limited permission. It is possible to interpret Canon 7A
(3) two ways: as making it proper for judges to attend political gatherings throughout the judge's
term of office, or as making it proper to attend political gatherings only during certain time periods
surrounding elections. This Board's view is that Canon 7A (3)'s

Op. 92-11 5
limited permission to attend political gatherings extends throughout the judge's entire term of
office. This view supports Canon 7's compromises between political reality and the necessity that a
judge be and appear to be impartial.
Therefore, in part answer to Question Two, the Board's view is that it is proper for an incumbent
judge to attend a political gathering. See e.g., Kentucky Sup.Ct, Formal Op. JE-45 (1983) (judges
are candidates during their entire term of office and may appear before a political gathering for
purposes of promoting their own candidacy. An appearance does not equate with membership in
the party any more than appearances before labor unions, social clubs and business groups amount
to membership in those groups.)
As to whether it would be proper for an incumbent judge running for re-election to sit at a speaker's
table at a political dinner and introduce a partisan candidate, several rules must be considered.
Canons 7A (3) permits an incumbent judge to speak at political gatherings on his or her own behalf
when he or she is a candidate for election or re-election. Canon 7A (l)(a) prohibits an incumbent
judge from acting as a leader in a political organization, and 7A (l)(b) prohibits incumbent judges
from public endorsement of a candidate for public office. Thus, there emerges three problems with
allowing a judge sitting at a speaker's table at a political dinner to introduce a partisan candidate.
Such introduction by the judge is not a speech on behalf of the judge's candidacy as permitted by
Canon 7A (3). Such introduction of a speaker by a judge at a political dinner could be considered
acting as a leader in a political organization as prohibited by Canon 7A (l)(a). Such introduction
could be viewed by others as a public endorsement of a candidate for public office as prohibited by
Canon 7A (l)(b). These problems would exist even though the proposed introduction would be
limited to stating the candidate's name and the office sought.
Therefore, in conclusion, it is the Board's opinion that an incumbent judge may attend a political
dinner, sit at the speaker's table, and be introduced as a judge; but he or she should not formally
introduce a partisan candidate even though such introduction is limited to stating the candidate's
name and the office sought without comment upon the candidate's qualifications for such office.
Advisory opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are informal,
nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding the
application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the Supreme
Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney's Oath of Office.