NCJ Number
62023
Journal
Judicature Volume: 61 Issue: 9 Dated: (APRIL 1978) Pages: 422-428
Date Published
1978
Length
7 pages
Annotation
THE CASE OF MORIAL V. JUDICIARY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA IS EXAMINED, IN WHICH COURTS UPHELD A STATE'S RIGHT TO REQUIRE JUDGES TO RESIGN BEFORE RUNNING FOR NONJUDICIAL OFFICES.
Abstract
STATUTES REQUIRING SUCH RESIGNATIONS ARE BASED ON STATE CODES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, WHICH INCLUDE A CANON REQUIRING RESIGNATION UPON CANDIDACY FOR NONJUDICIAL OFFICE. THESE CANONS ARE BASED ON AN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARD ADOPTED IN 1924, WHICH FORBIDS JUDGES FROM RETAINING THEIR POST WHEN COMPETING FOR NONJUDICIAL OFFICE. IN 1976, ERNEST N. MORIAL, A JUDGE IN THE LOUISIANA INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, RAN FOR MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS. WHEN THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT'S COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS RULED THAT MORIAL MUST RESIGN BEFORE ANNOUNCING HIS MAYORAL CANDIDACY, MORIAL FILED SUIT IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT ARGUING THAT HIS RIGHTS UNDER BOTH THE 1ST AND 14TH AMENDMENTS WERE BEING VIOLATED. ALTHOUGH THE LOWER COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF MORIAL, THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH RULED THAT LOUISIANA'S RULES MET THE STANDARD OF REASONABLE NECESSITY AND THEREFORE DID NOT VIOLATE MORIAL'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IN ADDITION, THE COURT STATED THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE PERMITS JUDGES TO BE TREATED SEPARATELY FROM OTHER STATE OFFICIALS, THEREBY RECOGNIZING JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS DIFFER SO GREATLY FROM THOSE OF OTHER GOVERNMENT BRANCHES THAT THE STATE CAN MAKE A DISTINCTION WHICH CANNOT BE CHALLENGED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. BY MAKING THIS NEARLY UNANIMOUS RULING IN A STATE WHICH ELECTS ITS JUDGES, THE COURT ENSURED THAT THE CANON WILL SURVIVE ELSEWHERE. TTHE MORIAL DECISION MAY INDUCE OTHER STATES TO ADOPT A CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)