Washington State Courts - Judicial Ethics

State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Opinion 89-11

Question

If requested, may a superior court judge give an opinion as to the merits of an initiative measure which is intended to provide additional funds for childrens' services by means of a tax increase? If there is an issue as to the judge possibly ruling on the legality of the initiative at a later time, is the solution to have the judge recuse? Is there any difference between a judge commenting on the efficacy of legislation which would improve the administration of justice as opposed to an initiative measure which will appear on the ballot?

If requested, may a superior court judge publicly comment in a general way on the need for additional funds for childrens' services in order to more effectively carry out the intent of RCW Title 13?

Answer

CJC Canon 7(A)(4) would prohibit a superior court judge from speaking on the merits of an initiative measure which is intended to provide additional funds for childrens' services by means of a tax increase as it does not relate to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. A judge may comment on the effectiveness of legislation and/or an initiative measure which relate to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.

A superior court judge may comment on the need for additional funds necessary to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.

NOTE: Effective June 23, 1995, the Supreme Court amended the Code of Judicial Conduct. In addition to reviewing the ethics advisory opinions, the following should be noted:

Opinion 89-11—CJC Canon 7(A)(4) became 7(A)(5).

The Supreme Court adopted a new Code of Judicial Conduct effective January 1, 2011. In addition to reviewing the ethics advisory opinions, the following should be noted:

CJC 4.1

Opinion 89-11

05/22/1989

Pattern Jury Instructions

Privacy and Disclaimer Notices Sitemap