Maryland judges may answer candidate surveys during campaigns, but with limits, ethics panel says

Listen to this article

A sitting judge who is running in an upcoming election may respond to a survey from a nonpartisan advocacy group but should be careful not to make pledges that raise questions about the court’s impartiality, Maryland’s judicial ethics panel said this week.

In a new published opinion, the state’s Judicial Ethics Committee said it is permissible for judge-candidates to answer a questionnaire from the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan organization that “encourages informed and active participation in government,” according to its website.

A judge who received the survey requested the opinion from the Judicial Ethics Committee, which offers occasional guidance on ethical issues faced by judges. The identity of the requestor is kept anonymous.

The survey posed four questions, according to the new opinion:

1. Qualifications: How does your experience prepare you for the duties of this judgeship?
2. Juvenile Justice: How would you address the problem of large numbers of minority youth being imprisoned?
3. Diversion Programs: What are your views on diversion programs for behavioral problems and substance abuse?
4. Challenges: What are the greatest challenges facing Maryland’s Circuit Courts and how should they be addressed?

The opinion focuses on Question 2, which the requestor highlighted as potentially problematic under judicial ethics rules.

The committee cautioned that judges should consider the code of judicial conduct, which requires them to behave in ways that promote public confidence in the judiciary’s independence and impartiality. The rules also require judges to abstain from making public comments about any pending court proceedings that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

Public statements that appear to commit a judge to a particular outcome would force that judge to disqualify themselves from proceedings where their impartiality might be questioned, the committee noted. But judges who are also candidates for office are allowed to express their views on issues of public concern.

“The Code does not prohibit a candidate-judge from expressing their opinion on important matters of public concern, notwithstanding the disputed legal and political positions and issues it may generate as long as the statements do not violate the ethical rules,” the committee wrote.

The League of Women Voters’ question about juvenile justice issues comes amid extensive public debate about youth crime and the response from law enforcement and the judiciary. The Maryland General Assembly is considering legislation that would make adjustments to the juvenile justice system, which disproportionately incarcerates young people of color.

If a judge’s answer to the question advocates for a particular position, such as reducing the number of young people of color who are incarcerated, the response could violate judicial ethics rules, the committee wrote. An answer that could be viewed as a pledge to act in a particular way would also be inappropriate.

Alternatively, if a judge views the question as an effort to discuss discrimination and equal justice under the law, they may “take that opportunity to express their strictest fidelity to justice,” the committee concluded.