FINAL REPORT1 Recommendation M-2 of 2019, Minor Court Rules Committee Amendment of Rule 4.2 of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges POLITICAL AND CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF JUDICIAL CANDIDATES IN PUBLIC ELECTIONS

The Minor Court Rules Committee (“Committee”) recommended amendments to Rule 4.2 of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges (“Conduct Rules”), relating to political and campaign activities of candidates for magisterial district judge in public elections.

Currently, Conduct Rule 4.2(B)(3) provides, among other things, that a candidate for elective judicial office may, unless prohibited by law and under certain time parameters, “publicly endorse or speak on behalf of candidates for any other elective judicial office appearing on the same ballot.” The Committee received a request to examine the phrase “on the same ballot” in that Rule, and was advised that there were differing interpretations of the phrase. By one interpretation of the phrase, magisterial district judge candidates could endorse magisterial district judge candidates running in the same election cycle, i.e., a candidate for magisterial district judge endorsing a candidate for magisterial district judge running in another magisterial district. Conversely, the competing interpretation is quite literal, meaning that the candidates must actually appear on the ballot together.

In 2019, the Supreme Court adopted amendments to Rule 4.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (governing appellate court judges, common pleas court judges, judges of the Philadelphia Municipal Court except for the Traffic Division, and senior judges of those courts) that define the phrase “candidates for any other elective judicial office appearing on the same ballot” to mean “candidates who appear together on the paper ballot or, in the case of electronic voting terminals, appear together on the electronic ballot.”2 The Committee recommended that the Court adopt an amendment to Comment [5] of Conduct Rule 4.2 adding that language.

1 The Committee’s Final Report should not be confused with the Official Notes to the Rules. Also, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania does not adopt the Committee’s Official Notes or the contents of the explanatory Final Reports.

2 Order of December 20, 2019, No. 529, Judicial Administration Docket.

In addition to the proposed amendment relative to the “same ballot” language, the Committee also recommended an amendment to Conduct Rule 4.2(B)(3) and Comment [5] to permit a candidate for magisterial district judge to publicly endorse or speak on behalf of candidates for the office of magisterial district judge within the same judicial district subject to the other provisions of the Rule. Judicial districts are defined by 42 Pa.C.S. § 901(a).