May a Florida judge sit on the board of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women? – The Florida Bar

May a Florida judge sit on the board of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women?

‘The changing nature of some organizations and their relationship to the law makes it necessary for a judge to regularly reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated in order to determine if it is proper for the judge to continue the affiliation’

A judge may serve as an unpaid member of the board of directors of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women, according to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

Acting August 24 in Opinion Number: 2023-07, the advisory panel was responding to an inquiry asking if a judge may serve as an unpaid member of the board of directors of the group. The judge said the service would not be in an executive position, such as the presidency or vice-presidency, and that the judge would not be involved in any fundraising or political advocacy.

The National Coalition of 100 Black Women, Inc., is a nationwide organization whose mission is to advocate on behalf of Black women and girls to promote leadership development and gender equity in the areas of health, education, and economic empowerment. The group advertises itself as an “advocate of black women and girls.”

The JEAC said judges must be circumspect in their association with any groups which might cause those appearing before them to have a reasonable fear of being treated with less than complete impartiality.

“Several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct are implicated in the judge’s question,” the opinion notes. “The first is the propriety of belonging to and taking a leadership role in an organization whose stated goal is to advocate for a) a certain sex, and b) a certain ethnic group.”

Canon 2C of the Code provides general guidance concerning membership in organizations whose membership might be associated with a certain race, sex, or other identifying characteristics, in that it states: “A judge should not hold membership in an organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin. Membership in a fraternal, sororal, religious, or ethnic heritage organization shall not be deemed to be a violation of this provision.”

Although the membership of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women is open to all sharing the goals of the organization, the JEAC said the very nature of the organization is such that reasonable persons would expect that its membership would consist primarily, if not exclusively, of Black women.

“So long as the organization does not practice invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin, the lack of a diverse membership does not indicate invidious discrimination and should not alone prevent a judge from considering membership,” the opinion says. “From the information available to the committee, there is no evidence of any other indicia of invidious discrimination which would prevent a judge from joining the group or serving as a director.”

While Canon 7D prohibits judges from engaging in political activities, the inquiring judge said although the organization does sometimes advocate for certain legislation it believes relate to its mission and goals, it considers itself non-partisan and does not endorse or otherwise support individual political candidates or parties. The judge also assured the committee he/she would abstain from any fundraising or political activity on behalf of the organization.

The committee has previously considered several questions concerning membership in organizations that become involved in political issues. In Opinion 09-13, membership in the National Rifle Association was approved based upon the conclusion that the NRA, though clearly involved in political advocacy, is neither a “political party” nor a “political organization” as defined in the Code of Judicial Conduct (citing Fla. JEAC Op. 00-22).

JEAC Opinion 20-22 also found that a judge could become a dues-paying member of the NAACP and, similarly, Opinion 20-04 held that it was appropriate for a judge to attend, as an honoree, a meeting of the National Congress of Black Women, so long as the purpose of the event was not fundraising.

The ethics panel, however, stressed that “limits clearly do exist” on participation in advocacy groups and judges must carefully consider the actual nature and extent of the activities of any group they wish to join, not merely its stated goals.

“In several instances, this committee has deemed participation in advocacy groups to violate the proscriptions contained in the Code,” the opinion says. “Fla. JEAC Op. 82-18 found membership in Mothers Against Drunk Drivers to be inappropriate. In Fla. JEAC Op. 91-14, membership in the Adam Walsh Child Resources Center was found to violate the canons, as did membership in the Dade County Political Women’s Caucus in Fla. JEAC Op. 93-50, membership in a county domestic violence council in Fla. JEAC Op. 01-14 (although such service has been approved under other circumstances), and service on the civil rights committee or executive committee of the Anti-Defamation League in Fla. JEAC Op. 94-13.”

But based upon the information provided by the inquiring judge, the committee found no evidence service as a director of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women as proposed would violate the Code of Judicial Conduct and “believes that the proposed activity is permissible.”

That said, the committee reminded judges they must continually exercise vigilance when choosing to become a member of an advocacy group.

“This Committee has consistently cautioned judges against lending the prestige of the judicial office to further the interests of advocacy groups, and it has specifically opined that judges cannot be personally involved with any lobbying activities for such organizations,” JEAC said, quoting from Op. 20-22. “However, the Committee has historically taken the position that mere membership in an organization which is well-known for its positions on political or controversial issues or promotes a particular legislative agenda is not prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct.”

JEAC further noted Canon 5C(3)(a) provides, in pertinent part, “The changing nature of some organizations and their relationship to the law makes it necessary for a judge to regularly reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated in order to determine if it is proper for the judge to continue the affiliation.”

With those cautions in mind, the committee said the inquiring judge’s proposed service on the National Coalition of 100 Black Women’s board is not prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee is charged with rendering advisory opinions to judges and judicial candidates on the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to their circumstances. While judges and candidates may cite the opinion as evidence of good faith, the opinions are not binding on the Judicial Qualifications Commission.