The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday reprimanded a St. Johns County judge for a misleading social-media post during an election campaign — but said she did not violate rules by identifying herself as a “conservative.”
The Supreme Court issued the written reprimand of Judge Casey Woolsey after a formal charge and recommendations by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. Woolsey, who was first elected in 2022, was accused of approving a misleading social-media post that suggested she had raised $100,000 from contributors when $50,000 came from a loan Woolsey made to the campaign, according to Thursday’s decision.
The Supreme Court approved a finding that the misleading information violated a judicial canon. But the Supreme Court rejected an allegation that Woolsey violated a canon by identifying herself as a “conservative” in a campaign-related voicemail. Judicial candidates are barred from partisan political activities, but the Supreme Court said that did not prevent Woolsey from identifying herself as a conservative.
“To describe oneself as a ‘conservative’ does not signal bias (pro or con) toward anyone or on any issue. Nor does it reasonably call into doubt the fairness of any future judicial proceeding involving the candidate. In political and legal discourse, ‘conservative’ is an indeterminate word of many meanings and connotations. Even if we assume that a candidate might use the word ‘conservative’ to associate herself with certain unstated views or personal dispositions, this (Supreme) Court has already observed that ‘our judicial code does not prohibit a candidate from discussing his or her philosophical beliefs,’” the unanimous decision said, partially quoting a legal precedent.
“At issue,” the court found, “are two distinct acts that occurred during now-Judge Woolsey’s first electoral campaign for judicial office, in 2022. First,
Judge Woolsey approved a social media post that misleadingly suggested she had raised $100,000 from third parties, when the announced figure included a $50,000 loan from Woolsey herself. Second, Judge Woolsey left the following recorded voicemail message for a voter: “Hey, sorry I missed you. My name is Casey Woolsey and I am calling because I’m running for County Court Judge here in St. Johns County. So, I just wanted to introduce myself and ask if you would consider voting for me when you’re filling in your mail-in ballots. I am a conservative, and my website is . . . .”
–News Service of Florida and FlaglerLive
Joe D says
Why….EXACTLY was she sanctioned? For failing to OPENLY say $50,000 of her $100,000 funds were from a loan she made of her own money to the campaign?
Didn’t our Current Senator Scott, just “loan” something like $3 million (?) to his own campaign?
I guess the Florida COURTS consider that MISLEADING and MISREPRESENTATION, because she is a JUDGE and he is JUST a US SENATOR?
I REALLY don’t quite understand the DOUBLE standard?
Ray W. says
Hello Joe D.
Judges are indeed held to a different standard.
Florida has a judicial canon of ethics, but there is no equivalent for politicians.
Rick Scott, either as governor or as senator, did not swear to tell the truth to the public when he took his oaths of office. A judge can be removed from the bench for failing to completely tell the truth. Many years ago, one of our judges was the subject of multiple allegations of judicial wrongdoings. In his answer to the allegations, he claimed certain things. The prosecuting body added another charge to the original set, based on his answer. He is no longer a judge. I appeared in front of him often. I saw him handle hundreds of cases. From what I saw, he was an excellent judge. Even-tempered. Fair. Listened to both sides. Considered and consistent in his rulings. But I did not see the events that led to the charges. Some of the primary allegations centered on traffic citations that were assigned to other judges. He asked for the files. When he returned them to the clerk’s offices, they contained orders of dismissal of charges signed by him. Two of the files pertained to his father-in-law. The Clerk’s Office reported the events.
JOE D says
That’s what I thought the technicality might be, for a judge…although I’m not sure still why not saying $50,000 of her $100,000 campaign fund came from personal fund loans, justified sanctions.
The “CONSERVATIVE” issue is an absolute JOKE! I’m what I consider “CONSERVATIVE” with a more moderate leaning….guess what?….I’m a DEMOCRAT!
This idea that your political party affiliation DETERMINES your view on issues is RIDICULOUS and downright DANGEROUS! Welcome to Florida ( and the USA currently…there seems to be no “middle ground”).
I have ALWAYS voted for the person….not automatically (blindly) voting for the PARTY….IMAGINE THAT?!? I don’t care if you are REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT/INDEPENDENT…male /female, young or older/ gay/straight/White or Minority…I vote for the PERSON. What they stand for, what they do ( now and in the past), not just what they SAY (that old “FACT CHECKING” thing few people do).
If we as a Country, and a GOVERNMENT don’t figure out how to reach some MIDDLE ground…there won’t BE a DEMOCRACY left for our children, much less our GRANDCHILDREN!