There are approximately 3,400 judges and justices of the New York State Unified Court System. With limited exceptions – most notably the Court of Appeals, which is New York State’s highest court – judges and justices are elected to specific terms of office.

Public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary requires keeping politics out of the courthouse and from influencing judicial decisions. Yet as the US Supreme Court has held, where judgeships are filled by election, it is necessary and permissible for judicial candidates to engage in some campaign activity while running for office because communication between candidates and electorate is fundamental to the democratic process. Republican Party of Minnesota v White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002).

The Rules Governing Judicial Conduct aim to strike a reasonable balance between these competing interests, i.e. allowing for and confining certain judicial campaign activity away from the courthouse. There is, for example, a defined “Window Period” of permissible political activity, based on when election to the judicial term is scheduled.¹ In this Window Period, judicial candidates – whether incumbent judges or non-incumbent challengers – may engage in certain campaign activity, such as purchasing two tickets to political events sponsored by political parties or other partisan organizations, which they may attend in order to promote their own candidacies. Except for the Window Period in which they are actually running for judicial office, or when exercising a fundamental democratic right such as voting in an election, judges may not engage in political activity.²

Even in their Window Period, candidates for judicial office, including incumbent judges, are subject to certain guidelines that do not apply to candidates for legislative or executive office. Section 100.5 of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct sets forth both the permissible and prohibited activities of judicial candidates.

The Commission publicly admonished a judge in 2022 for violating the political activity rules, and two others resigned and agreed never to seek or accept judicial office in the future.³ In Matter of Coffinger, for example, a judge was admonished for soliciting contributions for a political organization’s fundraising event and making misrepresentations about one of her opponents.

One valuable and easily accessible resource for judicial candidates is the Judicial Campaign Ethics Center (JCEC), which operates in conjunction with the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. Among other things, the Center responds to candidate inquiries, publishes useful guidelines, and administers a course on judicial campaign ethics, which may be completed in person, by video or via the internet. All candidates for election to judicial office, other than those running for town or village court justice, are required by the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct to complete the JCEC program or an accredited alternative “no later than 30 days after receiving the nomination for judicial office.” ⁴

Every year, the Commission is advised of numerous candidates who fail to take the course on time or at all. This is an easily avoidable transgression. Yet some candidates seem willing to risk future discipline for ignoring this and other political rules in the course of their election campaigns. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the judiciary, which should be separated from politics as much as possible, and which the Rules endeavor to achieve by limiting their partisan activity to when they are actually running for judicial office.

A judicial candidate or candidate’s representative should consult with the JCEC, whose protocol is to respond promptly to campaign-related inquiries because time is usually of the essence. Moreover, the JCEC web page should be consulted routinely for its valuable links to such documents as the Judicial Campaign Ethics Handbook, recently published Advisory Opinions, and guidelines on the appropriate way to dispose of unexpended campaign funds.

In 2023, the Commission was made aware of several dozen judges throughout the state who appeared to have made prohibited contributions over the past few years, mostly to candidates of the major political parties who were running for election to national or federal office, such as President, the US Senate or the House of Representatives. Most of the contributions were for modest amounts, typically under $100, and sometimes as low as $5 or $10.

Many of the judges did not seem to appreciate that the prohibition on partisan politics is not limited to state or local offices in New York but applies to all campaigns, anywhere. Many of the prohibited contributions appear to have been made on the spur of the moment, with little deliberation, in response to solicitations that came to the judges by email to their personal accounts, to their mobile phones as text messages, or to their computer internet browsers as “pop up” ads.

Because such contributions violate the Rules, the Commission was required to initiate inquiries into each of these cases. Where there was a valid explanation – for example, the purported “contribution” was in fact for the permissible purchase of two tickets to a political event during the judges’ applicable Window Period – the complaint was dismissed. Where there was no valid explanation or excuse, the Commission typically issued a confidential letter of dismissal and caution to the judge. A judge who repeats the violation risks public discipline in the future.

The Commission also referred the subject matter to Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas, who in August 2023 issued a statewide memorandum, reminding all judges and justices of the Unified Court System about the rules and limitations on campaign contributions. Among other things, he specifically noted that the “restrictions apply broadly to all elections, including national elections, as well as state and local elections outside New York State.”

Like so much of the misconduct the Commission encounters, making a prohibited political contribution is a self-inflicted mistake, easily avoidable by pausing when solicited, reviewing the Rules, consulting the Commission’s website, or researching the vast volume of advisory opinions.

From the 2024 Annual Report, pages 27-29.