Judicial Conduct Canon 4: Refraining from political or campaign activity inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary

Canon 4 governs how judges and judicial candidates conduct themselves in political and campaign activities, requiring that such activity never compromise the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary. It restricts partisan political involvement, limits speech and conduct during campaigns, and imposes special controls on campaign fundraising and committees.

When it applies

This comes up whenever a sitting judge or a candidate for judicial office engages in political endorsements, campaign fundraising, public statements about pending or impending cases, or party political activity; on the MPRE it tests whether a judge's campaign conduct or speech crosses the line into impropriety.

What the rule requires

Judges and judicial candidates must maintain the dignity of judicial office and act consistently with the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary throughout any political or campaign activity.
A judge or candidate shall not make pledges, promises, or commitments inconsistent with the impartial performance of judicial duties, including statements that appear to commit the candidate on issues likely to come before the court.
A judge or candidate shall not make false or misleading statements, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, during a campaign.
A candidate for judicial office must not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions; a candidate subject to public election may instead establish a campaign committee to solicit and accept funds.
Sitting judges and candidates are generally barred from holding leadership positions in political organizations, publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for any public office, or making speeches on behalf of political organizations or candidates.
Judicial candidates must direct their campaign committees to solicit and accept only reasonable contributions within applicable limits and time periods, and to comply with applicable disclosure and divestiture requirements.

Exceptions

Judges may attend and speak at political gatherings on their own behalf when campaigning for judicial office, within permitted limits.
A judge may respond to personal attacks or criticism of the judge's record during a campaign, even though this involves public comment.
Judicial candidates subject to public election may establish campaign committees to solicit funds and public support, an activity otherwise limited for sitting judges.
Certain de minimis or incidental political activity, such as voting or private political belief, is not restricted by Canon 4.

How the MPRE tests Judicial Conduct Canon 4

Students confuse personal solicitation of funds (prohibited) with committee-based solicitation (permitted) — the distinction is who is doing the asking.
Questions test whether a statement is a genuine 'pledge or promise' on an issue versus general philosophy or record discussion, which is permitted.
MPRE questions often blend Canon 4 campaign speech restrictions with Canon 2 impartiality concepts, requiring students to identify which Canon governs campaign-specific conduct versus on-the-bench conduct.
Students overlook that these restrictions apply equally to non-judge candidates running for judicial office, not just sitting judges.

Example

A trial judge running for reelection personally calls several attorneys asking them to donate to her campaign, and also states publicly that she will always rule against motions to suppress evidence in drug cases. Both actions violate Canon 4: personal solicitation of contributions is prohibited (funds must be raised through a campaign committee), and the statement constitutes an improper pledge on an issue likely to come before the court.

Related rules

On the MPRE

Judicial Conduct

A plain-English summary of the ABA Model Rule, not the rule text. Your jurisdiction's version of the rule controls in practice.