Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 2023-029 re: Hon. Casey L. Woolsey

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: June 20, 2024
• Docket: SC2023-1706
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC2023-1706 ____________

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 2023-029 RE: HON. CASEY L. WOOLSEY.

June 20, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission has presented to the

Court its Findings and Recommendation of Discipline regarding St.

Johns County Judge Casey L. Woolsey, together with a stipulation

entered by the JQC and Judge Woolsey. The parties agree that this

matter should be resolved through a public reprimand.

At issue 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 . . . .”

The JQC found, and the parties stipulated, that Judge

Woolsey’s approval of the misleading social media post violated

Canon 7A(3)(e)(ii). Among other things, that canon prohibits

judicial candidates from misrepresenting facts about themselves.

We approve this aspect of the findings, recommendation, and

stipulation without further discussion.

The JQC further found, and the parties stipulated, that Judge

Woolsey violated Canon 7 by referring to herself as “a conservative”

in a campaign-related voicemail. Canon 7 prohibits judges and

judicial candidates from engaging in “inappropriate political

activity.” To explain its finding on this point, the JQC reasoned:

“When Judge Woolsey asserted that she was a ‘conservative,’ she

inserted partisan politics into a judicial election in a county where

its residents are overwhelmingly registered as Republican and voted

overwhelmingly for Republican candidates in 2022.” The

-2- stipulation adds: “Judge Woolsey has expressed remorse and

regrets that describing herself as a ‘conservative’ called into

question the impartiality and integrity of the non-partisan judicial

elections.”

We do not agree that Judge Woolsey’s voicemail violated

Canon 7. The statement “I am a conservative” is not partisan,

either inherently or (as the JQC believed) when made during an

election campaign in a predominantly Republican community. Nor

is the statement inconsistent with “the dignity appropriate to

judicial office” or with “the impartiality, integrity, and independence

of the judiciary.” Canon 7A(3)(b). 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 Court has already

observed that “our judicial code does not prohibit a candidate from

-3- discussing his or her philosophical beliefs.” In re Kinsey, 842 So.

2d 77, 88 (Fla. 2003).

For these reasons, we approve the findings, recommendation,

and stipulation only to the extent that they pertain to Judge

Woolsey’s social media post. As discipline, we impose a public

reprimand, which shall be accomplished by the publication of this

opinion.

It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

Original Proceeding – Judicial Qualifications Commission

Gregory W. Coleman, Chair, Blan L. Teagle, Executive Director, and Alexander J. Williams, General Counsel, Judicial Qualifications Commission, Tallahassee, Florida; and Vincent A. Citro of Losey PLLC, Special Counsel, Orlando, Florida,

for Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, Petitioner

David B. Rothman of Rothman & Associates, P.A., Miami, Florida,

for Judge Casey L. Woolsey, Respondent

-4-