There are questions about whether Nevada gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval abided by the advice he received from the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States about the sort of political activity in which he could engage before he resigned his federal court judgeship.

At some point, Judge Sandoval sought advice from the committee regarding the sort of political activities in which he could engage prior to resigning his position. On August 5th, the chair of the committee, Judge M. Margaret McKeown, informed Judge Sandoval that Canon 5 of the Judicial Code of Conduct requires judges to refrain from political activity. Canon 5B states “a judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office,” while Canon 5C additionally states “a judge should not engage in any other political activity.”

Judge Sandoval had argued that Nevada law defines “candidacy” as filing a declaration of candidacy of an acceptance of candidacy, appearing on the ballot or receiving contributions in excess of $100. Nev. Rev. Stat § 294A.005. The committee, however, noted that Canon 5's proscription on political activity is broader than Nevada law and advised Judge Sandoval he could “consult privately with a limited group of individuals” about running, but could not make any public solicitations, inquiries or conduct a poll. Neither could he raise money, form even an informal committee, engage in any other political activity, or publicly discuss his candidacy or rumors of it.

Judge Sandoval announced his resignation on August 15th and actually stepped down on September 16th. Before he left the bench, however, it appears Judge Sandoval may have engaged in exactly the kind of political activity he was warned to avoid. For example, a push poll was conducted in which questions were phrased so as to suggest the other candidates in the governor’s race are unethical while extolling Judge Sandoval’s ethics. Although it has been reported that the Republican Governor’s Association paid for the poll, if Judge Sandoval was consulted or participated in the poll in any way, he would have violated the judicial code of conduct. Similarly, if as it has been suggested, Judge Sandoval hired political consultants or set up meetings to arrange campaign donations before he resigned – whether or not he actually held those meetings – again he would have violated the judicial code of conduct.

Judge Sandoval should disclose exactly who he met with and what activities he engaged in while sitting on the bench and deciding whether or not to run for office. The bottom line is that Judge Sandoval is presenting himself to Nevada voters as the ethical candidate in the race; that’s a pretty high bar. Skirting around the judicial code of conduct is no way to start.

Melanie Sloan is the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)