by Glenn Tschimpke
Staff Writer
Last week, the four judicial candidates facing opposition in the 4th Circuit Court got a lesson in ethics at the Duval County Courthouse. Dan Wilensky and David Gooding, competing for Circuit Judge Alban Brooke’s seat and Gregg McCaulie and John Cascone, competing for McCaulie’s seat, were treated to an ethical forum of the do’s and don’ts of judicial races. It was mostly a bunch of don’ts.
A typical campaign conjures thoughts of flag waving and fist pounding rhetoric from candidates. The campaign promises, the mudslinging, the partisanship, the television commercials, the last minute desperation jabs at opponents — it’s the kind of politicking Americans have come to accept as the norm.
All of the above does not, or should not, apply to judicial races. Long a position where ethics and morals are expected to rule, those seeking a judgeship are restricted to little more than an informational campaign.
“A judge or candidate for judicial office shall refrain from inappropriate political activity,” reads Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the bible of judicial campaigns.
So what constitutes “inappropriate?”
A comprehensive list of possible inappropriate activity would take more room than any newspaper could handle in a single issue. Most of the listed forbidden campaign practices revolve around the non-partisan nature of judicial races.
Those seeking judgeship must shun anything remotely related to politics and partisanship. That means don’t:
• be active in a political organization.
• publicly endorse or publicly oppose another candidate for public office.
• make speeches on behalf of a political organization.
• attend political party functions.
• solicit or contribute funds to a political organization or candidate.
The list goes on and on. Candidates were given guide books for clarification packed with rules, frequently asked questions and selected opinions of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.
So is it easy to slip up?
“Not really, not at all,” said attorney Hank Coxe, who attended the forum as a member of the board of governors for The Florida Bar. “It’s not complicated. It’s as complicated as you want it to be as long as you try to skirt the rules.”
North Florida judicial candidates have been traditionally well-behaved compared to their South Florida counterparts. While Coxe noted that the rules are not difficult, he pointed to a few important areas to remember.
“Two that come to mind that are prominent in a lot of people’s minds,” he said. “A candidate cannot align with a particular issue or side of an issue or political groups. That can manifest itself in many ways.”
Candidates who agree to attend political luncheons to talk about their candidacy are asking for trouble.
The strict rules come as no surprise to Fernandina Beach attorney John Cascone, who is running for Circuit Judge Gregg McCaulie’s seat.
“What the canons say all along is that you can’t promise anything but to obey the law and treat everybody fair,” Cascone said. “The message is don’t get out there and introduce political issues in a non-partisan situation.”
Cascone said he declined two invitations in the last week to attend political functions.
“It’s not appropriate to show up as a candidate,” he said.
What applies for candidates also applies to campaign supporters. That includes zealous friends and family who want to get the word out where ever and whenever they can. While the intent is noble, it could get the candidate in hot water.
For instance, if someone wanted to run for county court, supporters cannot pass out political flyers at a First Coast Liberated Republicans luncheon. Nor can they solicit funds for the campaign at other political functions. Basically, the supporters have to campaign in the same manner as the candidate, who must vigorously encourage them to do so. Playing dumb is not a valid excuse.
“You can’t play ostrich and bury your head in the sand,” said Coxe.
Judicial candidates can, however, receive endorsements from individual political groups. What they do with the endorsements is critical.
If the Fraternal Order of Police endorses a candidate because they think that is the best candidate based on experience and credentials, that’s OK. If the candidate takes the endorsement and runs with it by printing 10,000 flyers, touting the endorsement that’s a no-no.
“It’s how you yourself project your candidacy,” said Coxe.
So what is an example of proper campaigning for judicial candidates?
It’s pretty straightforward. Candidates can say who they are and what they’ve done. For example, Gooding and Wilensky have printed similar campaign cards.
Gooding’s reads, “David M. Gooding for Circuit Court Judge. Good for justice!” The card describes his personal and professional background and his civic affiliations.
Wilensky’s card has a noncommittal slogan: “Experienced. Committed. Trusted.” Equipped with a family portrait, the card lists past achievements and a brief family history.
Gooding recently flirted with trouble over the name of his campaign website, www.judgegooding.com, which raised a few eyebrows. The misleading name could have tricked supporters to assume he was an incumbent. Gooding has since changed the name to www.GoodingForJudge.com.
What difference does it make anyway? Politicians make empty campaign promises all the time. What’s wrong with a little innocent judicial partisan politics to get ahead?
Despite the rules and regulations about how judicial candidates must conduct themselves, there is no formal active watchdog. But that doesn’t mean a careless candidate won’t get bitten. If a judicial race gets dirty, the loser does have recourse. Complaints can be addressed to the Judicial Qualification Commission, which investigates questionable conduct of candidates. The findings are forwarded to the Florida Supreme Court. If the charges are egregious enough, it can remove a sitting judge from the bench as a result of campaign misconduct.
If that’s not bad enough, The Florida Bar will be waiting for the deposed judge. Because the Bar cannot discipline anyone while on the bench, it can disbar the individual after the Florida Supreme Court escorts him out of his chambers and into the street.
Despite the possible gloom and doom scenario, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee realizes the difference between the real world and the vacuum-sealed world of rules in the following concession: “The Committee’s experience during the past several years has demonstrated that literal obedience to Canon 7 is at times difficult and cannot be accomplished through adherence to formulated principles. Indeed, the Committee members occasionally express divergent views about the Canon’s application. Their disagreement results from factual settings which present circumstances not readily susceptible of determination through a ‘bright-line’ doctrine.”