STATE OF WASHINGTON
ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OPINION NO. 92-16

Question
     May a candidate for judicial office answer a questionnaire developed
by families and friends of violent crime victims which asks whether the
judicial candidate agrees or disagrees with the following statements: 1)
criminal sentencing alternatives should be implemented only if they protect
victim rights and do not further diminish public safety; 2) victims of
crime should have their voice heard and their input considered in the
criminal justice process; 3) our state should reinstate an habitual
offender law for repeat violent offenders; 4) victims whose constitutional
or statutory rights are violated by the criminal justice system should have
legal recourse; 5) the family members of a homicide victim should be
entitled under law to provide the court with a victim impact statement in a
capital murder case; 6) victim impact statements are an important tool for
judges to utilize in the sentencing phase of a criminal trial; and 7)
restitution, when reasonably ascertainable, should be ordered for every
offender who commits a crime; and 8) judges should be given more
discretionary powers in determining appropriate criminal sentences.

Answer
     CJC Canon 2(A) provides that judges conduct themselves at all times in
a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary.  CJC Canon 7(B)(1)(a) provides that judges and judicial
candidates should maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office.  CJC
Canon 7(B)(1)(c) provides that judges and judicial candidates should not
make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and
impartial performance of the duties of the office, announce their views on
disputed legal or political issues, or misrepresent their identity or
qualifications.
     Because these statements call for the responding judicial candidate to
comment on issues that are likely to come before the judge and also because
the responses may reasonably give the impression that a judge is committed
to acting in a certain way with respect to questions that may come before
the judge, it is not appropriate for the judicial candidate to respond.
The responses would impair the duty to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary which is required by CJC Canon
2(A).