On Wednesday, November 27, 2024, Colorado Politics reported that the Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board determined that judges in the state cannot serve as temporary election workers. This decision, communicated by the Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board, outlines significant concerns regarding the intersection of judicial duties and political involvement.
The advisory board, composed of judges, lawyers, and a non-attorney member, provided two primary reasons for this conclusion. First, they noted that temporary election workers, except in nonpartisan elections, are required to publicly disclose their political affiliations. This requirement raises potential conflicts with the ethical standards expected of judges. Secondly, the Code of Judicial Conduct imposes restrictions on the types of appointments that state judges may accept, reinforcing the notion that judicial roles should remain insulated from political activities.
The advisory opinion was prompted by an inquiry from an unnamed judge who had previously served as an election worker prior to his appointment to the bench. The judge sought clarity on whether he could continue this role during a partisan election. The panel clarified that serving as an election judge entails responsibilities such as ballot intake and tabulation, and requires an oath that includes stating one’s political affiliation in partisan elections.
The ethics panel emphasized that judges must refrain from political activities that could compromise their independence and impartiality. While judges are permitted to register with political parties and vote in partisan primary elections, they are prohibited from participating in public caucuses. This restriction is based on the understanding that caucuses publicly acknowledge a judge’s political affiliation, which could undermine the perception of judicial impartiality.
The panel further argued that even if a judge were not required to disclose their political affiliation to serve as an election worker, the position itself does not pertain to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice—areas where judges are expected to be active. The advisory board highlighted that engaging in roles outside these domains could lead to situations where a judge’s impartiality is questioned, potentially resulting in frequent disqualifications from cases.
In support of their ruling, the ethics panel referenced similar opinions from three other states, illustrating a broader consensus on the issue. A 2020 opinion from New York reached the same conclusion based on a comparable rule, although it did not elaborate on its reasoning. In Maryland, a 2016 opinion determined that judges could not serve as election workers due to their potential authority to enforce laws, such as ordering the arrest of disruptive individuals, which was deemed an executive function. Additionally, a 2008 opinion from Wisconsin denied a judge’s request to serve as a greeter at a polling place, stating that such a role was unrelated to the legal system or the administration of justice.
In response to this advisory opinion, the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office clarified that a voter’s profile, including their party affiliation, is already publicly accessible information. However, they declined to comment further on the ethics panel’s findings.
Source: Colorado Politics
