§ 39.2. Qualifications.
(a) The election of a candidate to judicial office should be based on individual competency and qualifications. Therefore, except for those seeking reelection on retention basis, it would be inappropriate to allow two candidates for judicial office to run joint campaigns. To do so would convey to the electorate the impression that, if voting for one, the voter should also vote for the other, or that the two candidates, if elected, will also share a unity of judicial thought and action. This is not to suggest that the candidate’s party organization may not advertise the entire slate of candidates, including judges, but that the candidate’s own campaign committee may not join forces with another judicial candidate’s committee in the election campaign.
(b) The faithful and proper performance of his duties if elected being material, a candidate may discuss his qualifications and the qualifications of his opponent. He may pledge the faithful and proper performance of his duties, but should make no other promises of conduct in office. He should not state his views on disputed legal or political issues. He may discuss and criticize, in a dignified manner, the capabilities and experience of his opponent and his conduct in carrying out judicial duties. A judge must approach each case before him with an open mind and decide it on the basis of the evidence, the law and precedent. Thus, a candidate should not indicate what his decision would be should a particular case or type of case come before him, or what sentence he would pass on a defendant charged with a particular crime.
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
