In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Lilly

Summary

A five-judge commission appointed by the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed judicial campaign-misconduct allegations against Paulette Lilly. The commission found clear and convincing evidence that several campaign communications violated Ohio judicial-conduct rules by creating an impression of incumbency and using improperly ordered campaign language. Lilly was fined $300, assessed costs, and had payment of costs suspended subject to no future related violation.

Holdings

1. The campaign towelette violated Canon 7(D)(3) because the wording did not place the terms "for," "elect," or "vote" in the order and manner required by the canon.
2. The towelette label violated Canon 7(D)(1) because placing "JUDGE" immediately before Lilly's name implied that she currently held the office.
3. The complainant failed to establish violations of Canons 7(B)(2)(f) or 7(D)(4) based on Lilly's use of the term "re-elect" because the office's jurisdiction had changed while Lilly was still serving, and she had served in a court with jurisdiction identical to that of the office she sought in 2008.
4. The phrase did not violate Canon 7(B)(2)(f) because it was reasonably susceptible to an interpretation conveying Lilly's current party affiliation rather than falsely stating that she had previously been elected as a Democrat.
5. The photograph of Lilly in a judicial robe, accompanied by "12 years Judicial Experience 1995-2007," did not establish a Canon 7(B)(2)(f) violation because Lilly had in fact served as a judicial officer for twelve years.
6. The cumulative campaign communications violated Canons 7(B)(2)(f) and 7(D)(1) because they were knowingly designed to create the inference that Lilly was an incumbent judge seeking reelection.
7. The commission imposed a $300 fine, assessed the costs of the proceedings, and suspended payment of costs on the condition that Lilly commit no future Code of Judicial Conduct violation related to campaign conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the wording "Re-elect FOR JUDGE Paulette LILLY" on a campaign towelette violated Canon 7(D)(3)'s required placement of the words "elect," "vote," or "for" when a candidate uses the term "judge."
2. Whether placing the term "JUDGE" immediately before Lilly's name violated Canon 7(D)(1) by implying that she currently held judicial office.
3. Whether Lilly's use of the term "re-elect" misrepresented the office for which she was previously elected in violation of Canons 7(B)(2)(f) and 7(D)(4).
4. Whether the phrase "Re-elect Democrat Paulette Lilly for Judge Domestic Relations Court" knowingly misrepresented Lilly's political identity in violation of Canon 7(B)(2)(f).
5. Whether Lilly's photograph in a judicial robe and the phrase "12 years Judicial Experience 1995-2007" violated Canon 7(B)(2)(f).
6. Whether the cumulative effect of Lilly's campaign communications created the impression that she was an incumbent judge, violating Canons 7(B)(2)(f) and 7(D)(1).
7. What sanction was appropriate for the established Canon 7 violations.

Disposition

other