How Should Surrogates Balance Need To Run for Office With Judicial Canons?

Many states elect judges who have to strike a tricky balance when running for office. Controversies often arise when elected judges accept contributions from parties who may regularly appear before them. In New Jersey, where all are judges are appointed (not that politics ever plays into that process), entanglements regarding balancing political engagement and serving on the bench seldom arise. The only judicial officers who must be elected are County Surrogates who act as judges in matters of probate, wills, estates, adoptions and incapacitated persons. In almost no easily contrived circumstance would politics ever interfere with or play into such matters, nonetheless, surrogates are bound by the Judiciary's rules.

As the New Jersey Law Journal reports, Atlantic County Surrogate Chris Brown has now responded to a formal complaint against him relating to his participation in a fundraiser for a legislative candidate. The Code of Judicial Conduct for Judiciary Employees is pretty clear that Surrogates and other judiciary employees cannot serve in leadership positions or as spokespersons for political organizations that support "partisan political activity." But does serving on paper as a member of a host committee of a political fundraiser for a friend to be on the same ballot column with you cross the line? That is essentially the question that now must be answered in this case in which there appear to be little or no clear precedents.

This all begs the question of whether a surrogate ruling on a will could really harm the perception of the independence of the judiciary while serving in the ceremonial position of the member of a host committee for a political fundraiser for another candidate on the ballot with them? If so, then how are Surrogates supposed to run for office on a political party's organization ticket, appear on the same yard sign, or the same political mailers as their running mates in their county?

I think the ACJC really needs to create some bright lines for Surrogates who face these tricky circumstances that will likely trigger future complaints in the heat of election season.

When Should Campaign Finance Violations Overturn The Result of Close Election and Who Does It, ELEC or the Court?

The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement (ELEC) today decided to intervene in an election contest in which a judge voided the outcome of a primary election due to what appears to have been an excessive and/or improperly reported campaign contribution in the amount of $16,000.

While this does not necessarily seem significant, for a Republican primary in sleepy Morris County, $16,000 is a lot of money. Plaintiffs in this case successfully argued that $16,000 represented such a large sum of the total amount of money spent in the election that it was enough to impact its outcome where the candidates were separated by only a handful of votes.

ELEC, however, appears to asserting its primal jurisdiction over such matters as it has done before. In Re the Contest of the Democratic Primary in 2003, 367 N.J. Super. 261 (App. Div. 2004). In this case the Appellate Division remanded an election contest to ELEC to "develop a record and utilize its expertise in interpreting the Act's provisions as to the claimed violations."

SEC Posts Pay To Play Staff Guidance Online

The staff of the Division of Investment Management at the Securities & Exchange Commission ("SEC") is now providing responses to questions posed in relation to its recently adopted pay to play Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The last update was provided on April 28, 2011, so I would anticipate additional responses being provided in the near future.

Link Here: http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/pay-to-play-faq.htm