Conduct Unbecoming: Judicial Rules & Races in Ohio

An independent, fair, and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the rules contained in this code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system. (Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct preamble)

Based on Ohio’s Code of Judicial Conduct quoted above, Ohioans across the political spectrum have a right to expect judges to be independent, impartial, and comport themselves in a way that encourages confidence in the judiciary. Ohioans hope that judges give everyone who comes before them a fair chance and use an unbiased lens when making decisions. Right or wrong, they presume that the state’s highest court will uphold its own values and ethics.

We here at the Ohio Fair Courts Alliance have the same expectations, hopes, and presumptions. But not today. Today, we have the unfortunate task of sharing two recent Ohio examples that represent the exact opposite.

Example One: 2026 Ohio Primary Election Political Ad 

A judge or judicial candidate shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary. (Canon 4, Jud.Cond.R.)

Judges in Ohio are elected, run ads, and campaign like any other candidates for office. Unlike other candidates, those running for judge are subject to ethical rules of conduct outlined in the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct (Jud.Cond.R.), which are governed, adopted, and enforced by the Supreme Court of Ohio. 

Jonathan Entin, Case Western Reserve University School of Law explains that these rules are in place because “the idea of an independent and impartial judiciary assumes that judges are not simply politicians in robes.” 

Fifth District Court of Appeals Judge Andrew King, who vied for the Republican nomination for one of two Ohio Supreme Court (OSC) seats open this year, apparently missed the message when he ran an ad on his campaign’s Facebook page one week before the May 5, 2026, primary election. You can view the ad here.

The ad touts King as “the pro-Trump constitutional conservative for [Ohio] Supreme Court” while he sits on a court bench thumbing through a Bible.

Ad Text: The narrator says, “A life of experience delivering justice from the bench, Judge Andrew King is the pro-Trump constitutional conservative for Supreme Court. Judge Andrew King shares our values. Conservative, Republican, Pro-Trump. Judge Andrew King for Ohio Supreme Court.”

The Ohio Fair Courts Alliance and Common Cause Ohio have tracked Ohio Supreme Court ads through our Judge the Ads site for two election cycles and there’s never been an ad quite as “in your face” and overtly partisan as this one. Constitutional, yes. Conservative, yes. Trump and a Bible, no.

In a Bloomberg Law article entitled Ohio Primary Showcases New Era of Partisan Judicial Campaigns, Judge King contends that “all of this is valuable for the electorate, as it’s giving voters information they want to make a decision about the judicial candidate.” 

But in a separate article, he says, “I can be conservative in my own personal life and my own personal views, but if the law, the constitution, dictates an outcome that maybe I personally would not prefer, well my oath and obligation as a judge is to follow the law.”

Hmmm, really? If judges follow the rule of law, no matter where it takes them or whether or not they approve, then isn’t it disingenuous to give voters information about your personal life and personal values that may or may not align with how you’re going to rule on the bench? Isn’t it equally disingenuous to use your personal, partisan views in a campaign ad, yet try to assure voters that you’ll leave that all at the door the moment you get on the bench? 

It’s hard to see how this ad is consistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary, and we’re hard pressed to view Judge King as an impartial, unbiased arbiter of the law, who follows core constitutional principles such as separation of church and state. 

Fun fact: In 2025, Judge King was appointed to the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, which is governed and overseen by the Ohio Supreme Court. You cannot make this stuff up. 

Confidence in the courts is at an all-time low, and political activity from judges only makes it worse. This is a problem no matter what the political party.

“For generations, we have asked Ohioans to trust that judges are different—that they decide cases based on law, not politics. That trust is not automatic. And once eroded, it is extraordinarily difficult to restore. This is not about party. It is about the role of the judiciary in a constitutional system.” – former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly

For what it's worth, King lost to Colleen O’Donnell, who ironically is the daughter of his former mentor, retired Ohio Supreme Court Justice Terrence O’Donnell.

Example Two: Ohio Supreme Court Ruling on Judicial Endorsements

It is not hyperbole to say that we’ve had some VERY questionable decisions from our state’s highest court in recent years – “boneless” chicken wings don’t have to be boneless (even late night talk show host Stephen Colbert weighed in, calling the decision “hot legal garbage”), and nitrogen gas is “not a poison!” 

Here’s another eyebrow-raising decision, this one about political endorsements from judges.

On April 2, 2026, in a 5-1 Republican majority opinion, Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, and Justices Pat DeWine, Joe Deters, Dan Hawkins, and Megan Shanahan made Ohio the first state in the nation to allow political endorsements from judges by ending the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct's decades-old ban on state judges and judicial candidates openly endorsing (or opposing) a candidate for another public office. (Justice Jennifer Brunner, the lone Democrat on the court, did not participate in the decision.)

The OSC case unfolded like this. The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct found that now-retired Clinton County Common Pleas Judge John “Tim” Rudduck’s social-media activity violated, among other things, the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct’s ban on judges endorsing or opposing political candidates when he used his personal Facebook page to share and comment on his son Brett’s campaign-related content for Clinton County Municipal Court judge. 

Note 1

The applicable Judicial Code of Conduct Rules here are 1.2, 1.3, or 4.1(A)(3). Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 (requiring a judge to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary), 1.3 (prohibiting a judge from abusing the prestige of his or her judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others), and 4.1(A)(3) (prohibiting a judge from publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for another public office).

The court agreed with the disciplinary panel’s ruling, and then promptly took a left turn. Without being asked, the court took it upon itself to question whether “this court may prohibit a sitting judge from publicly endorsing a candidate for political office.” 

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that Jud.Cond.R. 4.1(A)(3) is unconstitutional because it violates the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore a violation of the rule cannot serve as a basis for discipline. 

Note 2

The court further ruled, “because the violation of Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 found by the board in this case was premised on its finding of a violation of Jud.Cond.R.4.1(A)(3), the Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 violation also cannot serve as a basis for discipline. Further, upon a review of the facts and our caselaw, we conclude that Rudduck’s Facebook activity did not violate Jud.Cond.R. 1.3.”

In a twist no one saw coming, Republican Justice Pat Fischer responded with a scathing dissent. The 6-1 Republican majority has historically put up a united front on decisions, so you know it’s a bad decision if one of their own steps out of line.

First, Justice Fischer pointed out that the court should not have answered this question. Rudduck did not challenge the constitutionality of Jud.Cond.R. 4.1(A)(3) and he explicitly waived any constitutional issue. Rudduck only maintained that his actions did not violate that rule. “In doing so, the majority rejects the principles of party presentation, judicial restraint, and constitutional avoidance,” states Justice Fischer.

Note 3

A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. Constitutional rights can be and often are waived, and such waivers are generally found to be valid when they are made in writing.

Fischer writes further that, when a judge participates in another person’s political campaign, his impartiality can be questioned and public faith in the judiciary’s “ability to abide by the law and not make decisions along political lines” can be lost. 

Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Mike Donnelly criticized the court’s majority for issuing such a major decision without first having a public debate and hearing from bar associations and judicial independence groups. Donnelly also said he was “deeply concerned” that the ruling will hurt public confidence in the judiciary.

Thank goodness the majority had the decency to end on a positive note with “although we conclude that Rudduck did not violate Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 1.3, or 4.1(A)(3), that does not mean that we approve of his conduct.” That is very reassuring.

It all just feels wrong, doesn’t it? 

It does. When judges are proclaiming their allegiance to divisive partisanship or endorsing candidates from the bench, we instinctively feel something is very wrong. Of course, we’re not naive: we know there is pressure on judges to win elections by doing things they didn’t used to have to do. But judges are (theoretically and historically) supposed to be different. They’re supposed to at least appear to be above the fray. Regrettably, Ohio has ushered in a new era of partisan judicial campaigns, one that is likely to be emulated in other states.

“Who is ever going to believe you get a fair day in court.” – perfect encapsulation of the moment from Catherine Turcer, Common Cause Ohio executive director

But we are not hopeless and helpless.

We can’t in good conscience end on a sour note. Believe it or not, there are things that the public can do. One: VOTE. There are two seats on the Ohio Supreme Court on the ballot this fall. Two: tell your friends and family to vote. Three: be an informed voter. Get information about the judicial candidates running for office and share it with your friends and family. Four, and this is a hard one given where we’re at in the world: be an engaged citizen. It's easy to opt out, to not pay attention, to pretend it's someone else’s problem. It's not. It's on us to show courts and judges that we’ve got our eye on them and we’re keeping tabs. It’s on us to demand better.