In the Matter of Robert P. Jones, 68 N.Y.2d 279 (1986)
r
r
Judges must refrain from ongoing, active involvement in partisan politics beyond what is necessary for their own election campaigns, even in jurisdictions where judges are elected.
r
r
Summary
r
This case involves a New York Town Justice, Robert P. Jones, who engaged in significant political activity within his own party, including attempts to oust the party chairman. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the Judicial Conduct Commission’s determination that Jones’s actions violated ethical standards for judges. The court found that his extensive political involvement, well beyond the scope necessary for his own reelection campaigns, warranted his removal from judicial office, emphasizing that judges must maintain impartiality and avoid partisan entanglements even in elected positions.
r
r
Facts
r
Robert P. Jones, a Town Justice, undertook a campaign to influence the leadership of his political party. This included recruiting a friend to join the Town Democratic Committee, advocating for the removal of the existing party chairman, holding a meeting to demand the chairman’s resignation, and participating in a caucus to oust the chairman. Jones actively sought replacement candidates, urged party members to attend the caucus, and nominated a temporary chairman for the proceedings. This occurred outside of any election cycle where Jones himself was a candidate.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated Jones’s actions and unanimously concluded that his conduct violated applicable ethical standards and warranted removal from office. The case then came before the New York Court of Appeals for review of the Commission’s determination.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a judge’s active and ongoing involvement in internal political party affairs, beyond the scope of their own election campaigns, violates the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct, thus warranting disciplinary action.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics clearly delineate the boundaries of permissible political activities for judges, and Jones’s actions exceeded those boundaries, demonstrating a disregard for ethical restraints. His immersion in party affairs, outside of an election cycle, created an appearance of impropriety and compromised the impartiality of the judiciary.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court emphasized that judges must hold themselves aloof from partisan politics, except when actively campaigning for their own reelection. Jones’s actions represented a