The Mississippi Supreme Court changed the playing field for judicial elections. Judicial elections are non-partisan in Mississippi. Judicial candidates are barred from seeking the endorsements of political parties. However, the Court removed the prohibition Thursday.
Section 5C(2) of the Mississippi Judicial Canon prohibits judicial candidates from personally seeking or accepting campaign donations or
(2) A candidate shall not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions or personally solicit publicly stated support. A candidate may, however, establish committees of responsible persons to conduct campaigns for the candidate through media advertisements, brochures, mailings, candidate forums and other means not prohibited by law. Such committees may solicit and accept reasonable campaign contributions, manage the expenditure of funds for the candidate's campaign and obtain public statements of support for the candidacy. Such committees are not prohibited from soliciting and accepting reasonable campaign contributions and public support from lawyers. A candidate's committees shall not solicit or accept contributions and public support for the candidate's campaign earlier than 60 days before the qualifying deadline or later than 120 days after the last election in which the candidate participates during the election year. A candidate shall not use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the candidate or others.The accompanying commentary justifies the rule: "There is legitimate concern about a judge's impartiality when parties whose interests may come before a judge, or the lawyers who represent such parties, are known to have made contributions to the election campaigns of the judicial candidates."
The committee is supposed to establish a buffer between the candidate and donors. However, the Mississippi Supreme Court threw part of the rule out Thursday. The Court posted the new rule in an exhibit attached to the opinion:
Justice Leslie King strongly disagreed with the Court:
In 2007, the ABA amended its model code to allow nonpartisan judicial candidates to “seek, accept, or use endorsements from any person or organization other than a partisan political organization.” ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 4.2(b)(5) (emphasis added). Thus, although the ABA made some provision to allow candidates to solicit support on their own, the model rule continues to set apart nonpartisan judicial candidates from partisan politics. The amendment adopted by the Court today makes no such divide.It appears its a new day for judicial elections in Mississippi.
¶10. Today, contrary to Mississippi’s policy of nonpartisan judicial elections, the amendment adopted by this Court allows nonpartisan judicial candidates to seek endorsements from partisan political organizations....
¶11. It would appear that the primary purpose, if not sole purpose, of this action is to bring partisan politics into Mississippi’s judicial elections. I therefore object to the entry of this order...
24 comments:
Crooks. Anyone else surprised?
This ruling does not usher in a new day. It is a common sense l
ruling that makes legit the way things have been done for years.
I take exception to the comment at 1:01. Most appellate judges/justices take their responsibility to the jurisprudence of Mississippi very seriously. They work hard to get it right, as best they can discern what that is. Very few, in my opinion, are actually politicians in black robes.
1:46: counterpoint: Judge McCarty
... KF quotes King but not Randolph, who wrote to opine that the change brings the canons into conformity w federal law.
"...shall not personally solicit..." was always bullshit to begin with.
Since when, given an option, does Mississippi choose to be in conformity with federal law? What a hollow analysis. And if you claim it's not an analysis, what the hell is it?
1:46 Well said your honor.
2:49: it’s a reference to what Randolph wrote.
You want legal analysis, my retainer is $5k.
This is probably one of the most bullshit posts you have made, KF. Try reading the actual ruling made by the Court, not just the dissent by Justice King.
The ruling comports the MS Code to federal law - as determined by the real Supremes (Those in DC, above the level of King and Kitchens.)
It has long been proven law that the parties could support judicial candidates - ever since the MS Legislature tried to outlaw it, but a simple lawsuit, with an agreed order entered by AG Moore overturned that action.
Almost two decades ago SCOTUS ruled that this language violated the First Amendment (you know, that one that comes right before the renowned 2nd Amendment.) And several Federal District Courts have overturned this language in other state Judicial Codes.
No, this does not make Judges partisan (any more than they already are) but recognizes the fact that if you are going to require judges to be elected rather than appointed, you are making them be candidates. And if you are a candidate, you have to speak to the electorate asking for their votes. To pretend that you want to elect judges, but don't want them to be able to campaign is pure poppycock. It can't be done - so to all that think we should elect everything from coroner and surveyor to Supreme Court Justices, live with that decision and realize that in order to campaign judges must be able to speak to the issues.
Read Randolph's "special concurrence" if you want to find out 'the rest of the story' rather than just the crap that is posted above trying to stir up comments.
Nothing burger
@3:32pm - Thanks, Randolph’s law clerk.
No 5:09, afraid not.
In fact, I don't even darken the doors of the Gartin Building. Not a clerk, not even a lawyer.
But even though I haven't slept at a Holiday Inn for quite some time, I have been involved in several judicial elections.
And I also have kept up to date with the various rulings of THE Supreme Court about this issue over the past decade or so.
Just because Justice King wants to practice his (their) own form of politicizing the judiciary, this new statement (of what is already existing law) of the MS Code of Judicial Conduct, and not follow the dictates of many federal courts regarding the rights of freedom of association free speech, doesn't give his opinion any validity.
As long as we in Mississippi keep wanting to elect everything - coroners, surveyors, public service and transportation commissioners, and numerous other elected officials - including Judges - we have already politicized the juridicary. Asking someone to 'campaign' for an office but not allowing them to speak to certain groups, or make statements of their opinions, is a ridiculous charade and only satisfies those that want to wear their blinders over their tinted shades.
It wasn't that long ago that the opinion existed that only lawyers could contribute to a judicial campaign because supposedly "they knew who would be good" for the job. Conflict of interest?? Damn right.
I give to judicial candidates because I want good, fair, honest judicial actions. I hope to never appear in court on either side of the dais - certainly not appearing in front of it arguing for my personal positions.
But to ask a candidate to "run" for office but keep their mouths shut while doing so is a ridiculous concept. And those that like it survive on the distribution of sample ballots associating their candidacy with other popular individuals - even though that has been, and still is, deemed to be improper.
Haven’t read the opinion but a HUGE difference between federal and state judges is that federal judges are appointed, as opposed to state court judges that run for election.
The Supreme Court of Mississippi is an august group of high-minded legal scholars who have chosen to comment themselves to the betterment of Mississippi's jurisprudence, often at personal sacrifice. To suggest that any of them would do anything less than what is prudent, proper, and of the utmost legal propriety shows a complete and total lack of susceptibility to bullshit.
Read that VERY carefully before you respond...just sayin'
"You want legal analysis, my retainer is $5k.December 14, 2019 at 3:05 PM"
And that may be the reason you're playing on the office internet at 3:05 instead of working. And before you offer a snide remark about me posting at 2:45 a.m., I do what I want since retiring from the bench after having ridden it for years. :)
Federal judges are elected by a constituency of 2.
King is not a federal judge. Another mistake Sir Haley made was in appointing him to the State Supreme Court. He was a mediocre lawyer in Greenville for years, pandering to the local school board and to his brother in law who was a principle, bumping fists with the likes of Johnny Walls. Then he ran for office and managed to get himself elected. He thinks mighty well of himself, but remains largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of society.
As long as there are judicial elections they will never be truly nonpartisan. I am not sure there is much reason to pretend otherwise, and the veneer of nonpartisan elections probably serves to disguise what is happening in reality rather than making the process more transparent.
If you road a Harley and had multiple DUIs, Chuck McRae always smiled favorably on your case. Prolly coincidental.
There is no way Leslie King can be described as a 'high-minded legal scholar'. But, I sure did need a large belly-laugh this afternoon. Thanks much.
King is lucky to have a job and will eventually retire with a nice PERS forever-pension and 13th check.
Well, it is the Christmas season, so having Randolph the Red-nosed Redneck show up is at least seasonally appropriate.
Here's a question for anyone, including any current or former SC of MS justices that happen to be reading: why does a candidate for the Court, running in a non-partisan election, need much of an election committee or campaign budget beyond a small amount to travel to a few locations around the district in which they are seeking to be elected and make a case (pardon the pun) for themselves?
And here's one for every voter: when you last voted for a Supreme Court justice, why did you vote for that person?
Challenge for all non-lawyer types (and their employees):
Without using Google, name two Mississippi Supreme Court Justices, now or over the past forty years. Well then...just ONE.
Appoint all judges!
Appointing judges/justices will guarantee a partisan judiciary. I just don't trust politicians to appoint anyone who isn't also a politician. I also realize many of our appellate jurists started as appointees, but they then had to win an election in order to keep the seat. At least with elections there is some accountability to the public.
Post a Comment