Judicial endorsements in California are governed by Canon 5 of the California Code of Judicial Ethics, which sets different rules for sitting judges, judicial candidates, and the outside organizations that back them. Because superior court judges run on nonpartisan ballots, endorsements do heavy lifting in these races, and the ethics code treats them accordingly.1Supreme Court of California. California Code of Judicial Ethics
Why Endorsements Carry So Much Weight
Superior court judges serve six-year terms and appear on the ballot without any party affiliation.2California Courts Newsroom. Judicial Selection: How California Chooses Its Judges and Justices Most voters have no direct experience with the candidates and no partisan shorthand to fall back on. Endorsements fill that gap. When a bar association, a police union, or a well-known elected official backs a candidate, the signal functions less like political support and more like a professional reference.
Who Actually Endorses Judicial Candidates
The most structured evaluations come from bar associations. Local and specialty bar groups interview candidates, review their records, and issue formal ratings or endorsements.
Elected officials — state legislators, mayors, county supervisors — also endorse, as do law enforcement groups like police officer associations and district attorney organizations. Their backing tends to carry particular weight in judicial races. Editorial boards at major newspapers interview candidates and publish recommendations, giving candidates a visibility boost that bar ratings alone rarely provide.
What Candidates Can and Cannot Say
Canon 5B draws a firm line around campaign speech. A judicial candidate cannot make statements that commit them on cases, controversies, or issues likely to come before the courts.3Supreme Court of California. California Code of Judicial Ethics In plain terms, a candidate cannot promise voters how they would rule on a particular type of case. Endorsers sometimes want exactly that kind of assurance, and candidates who give it risk discipline even if they win.
Canon 5B also prohibits candidates from knowingly misrepresenting their own qualifications, present position, or any fact about an opponent, or doing so with reckless disregard for the truth.1Supreme Court of California. California Code of Judicial Ethics This reaches campaign materials that feature endorsements. If a mailer implies an endorsing organization vouches for something that is not true, the candidate bears responsibility. Campaign materials also cannot create the impression that the candidate will use judicial office to benefit an endorser. A mailer pairing a real estate developers’ association endorsement with promises about property cases could cross that line.
Soliciting Endorsements
Candidates may ask for endorsements, but sitting judges running for a different judicial seat face a tighter standard than non-judge candidates. Because a sitting judge wields judicial power regardless of whether the campaign succeeds, approaching individual lawyers for endorsements creates an inherent risk that the request looks coercive. A judge seeking endorsements must frame requests carefully to avoid any appearance of leveraging the current position.1Supreme Court of California. California Code of Judicial Ethics A lawyer who regularly appears before the judge could reasonably feel pressure to say yes, which is precisely what the rule aims to prevent.
What Sitting Judges Can and Cannot Do
Canon 5A imposes broad restrictions on political activity by sitting judges. A judge cannot make speeches for a political organization or for a non-judicial candidate, and cannot publicly endorse or oppose any candidate for non-judicial office.1Supreme Court of California. California Code of Judicial Ethics The reasoning is straightforward: a judge’s endorsement of a city council or legislative candidate lends judicial authority to partisan politics in a way that compromises the court. Even attending political gatherings is restricted to situations where the judge’s presence would not amount to an endorsement of a non-judicial candidate.
The major exception is judicial races. A sitting judge may publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for judicial office.1Supreme Court of California. California Code of Judicial Ethics The Commentary to Canon 5A explains that judicial officers have a special obligation to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and are uniquely positioned to know what the job requires.
Even when endorsing a judicial candidate, a sitting judge must act in a personal capacity. The judge cannot use court resources, court staff, or the official trappings of the position to advance the campaign. A judge who sends endorsement letters on court letterhead, or asks a clerk to help with campaign logistics, has crossed the line.
What Nonprofits and PACs Can Do
Tax-exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code face an absolute prohibition on campaign intervention, and that includes endorsing or opposing candidates in judicial elections. The nonpartisan nature of the ballot does not create an exception.4Internal Revenue Service. Attempts by Exempt Organizations to Influence Judicial Appointments Organizations that cross this line risk losing their tax-exempt status.
Other tax-exempt organizations have more room. A 501(c)(4) social welfare organization or a 501(c)(6) business league can engage in political activity, including judicial endorsements, so long as it is not the organization’s primary activity. Political action committees affiliated with unions, corporations, or trade associations can endorse freely and spend money supporting judicial candidates, subject to campaign finance disclosure requirements.
Who Enforces the Rules
The Commission on Judicial Performance investigates complaints of judicial misconduct, including campaign violations.5Commission on Judicial Performance. About the Commission on Judicial Performance If a sitting judge violates the endorsement restrictions in Canon 5A, or a candidate violates the campaign speech rules in Canon 5B, the Commission can investigate and impose discipline ranging from a private admonishment to removal from office. A judge who endorsed a candidate for state legislature, or who made campaign promises about future rulings, would face a credible complaint.
The Commission’s authority reaches judges and judicial candidates only. It does not regulate endorsers themselves. An organization or elected official who makes misleading claims while endorsing a judicial candidate falls outside the Commission’s jurisdiction, though the candidate who circulates that endorsement in campaign materials can still be scrutinized for allowing the misrepresentation to spread.