Michigan allows judicial candidates to participate in political activity. Evaluating a campaign mailer requires distinguishing those permissions from the rules governing campaign speech.
The linked Siver campaign mailer describes his opponent as someone “appointed by Pro-Abortion Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer.” That wording goes beyond announcing an endorsement: it identifies the governor by party and abortion position. Its ethical significance requires examination of the communication in context and the applicable speech rules. Attendance at a political gathering, receipt of an endorsement, or expression of a political view does not by itself establish a violation. Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 7.
Code of Judicial Conduct · State Bar guidance on campaign speech
Previously Reported Party Support
Allegan County GOP’s own website lists Tom Siver, identified there as “Attorney Tom Siver, Candidate for Allegan District Court Judge,” among the confirmed participants in a Republican Party fundraiser held on his behalf. The page names two sitting state representatives, Nancy DeBoer and Rachelle Smit, as “Freedom Sponsors” of the event. Confirmed attendees listed on the same page include Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall, U.S. Representative Bill Huizenga, state Senator Roger Victory, sitting 57th District Judge Christopher Burnett, and Michael Warren, a convention-endorsed Republican candidate for the Michigan Supreme Court.
Clutch Justice previously reported that the county party endorsed Siver despite an earlier vote against endorsement by its delegates. These are accounts of party support and internal party decisions; they do not independently establish judicial campaign misconduct.
What Canon 7 Permits and Restricts
Canon 7(A) allows political gatherings, speeches for oneself or other judicial candidates, and party contributions. It restricts party officeholding, speeches for parties or nonjudicial candidates, and public endorsements of nonjudicial candidates. See the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Canon 7(B)(1)(a), (c), and (d) address dignity, commitments inconsistent with impartial adjudication on matters likely to come before the court, and knowing or reckless falsity. A political opinion is not automatically a prohibited commitment. State Bar Opinion JI-131 explains constitutional protection for candidates’ views while retaining guidance against creating an impression of bias toward a class or group.
The State Bar’s ethics opinions are guidance; their application requires attention to the particular facts and controlling law. JI-131 also explains that several older restrictions on judicial campaign speech no longer survive the Supreme Court’s decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White. General political philosophy and promises about deciding cases must be distinguished.
The Mailer: Endorsement and Campaign Wording
The first linked image shows a Siver campaign mailer describing his opponent with this wording:
“appointed by Pro-Abortion Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer”Siver campaign mailer, image 1.
The quotation describes an opponent through the appointing governor’s party and abortion position. It therefore contains more than an announcement of an RLM-PAC endorsement. Whether that language establishes a violation requires consideration of the communication’s context and evidence relevant to the particular rule invoked. The quotation alone does not establish a promise about future rulings or a knowingly false statement.
Receiving a group’s endorsement and publishing campaign language are separate acts. Permission to receive support does not resolve every question about a mailer’s content. Equally, partisan wording does not automatically establish prohibited judicial campaign conduct.
The second linked image displays “100% Pro Life,” announces an exclusive Right to Life of Michigan PAC endorsement, and carries the disclosure “Paid for by Tom Siver for Allegan District Judge.” That disclosure identifies the stated campaign payer; it does not identify which individual approved the wording. The endorsement announcement and the description of the opponent are separate elements of the campaign material.
Receiving Support and Giving an Endorsement
State Bar Opinion JI-81 recognizes that judicial campaigns may seek public support, including from interest groups. Michigan’s annotated Canon 7 guidance also discusses political organizations’ support for judicial candidates. Such support is distinct from a judicial candidate publicly endorsing a person for nonjudicial office.
The supplied discussion refers to Democratic support for Burnett and Wolf, and to Slais’s use of the same RLM-PAC endorsement. Those assertions have not been independently verified for this revision. Even if confirmed, each candidate’s own communications would require separate review under the same standards. An organization’s description of its endorsement process as nonpartisan does not determine whether a particular campaign message complies with those standards.
Timeline From the Supplied Reporting
Allegan County GOP’s website names Siver as the beneficiary of a party fundraiser, sponsored by sitting state representatives, alongside the House Speaker, a sitting congressman, a state senator, and a sitting district judge.
The Allegan County GOP Executive Committee votes 12-4 to reverse its endorsement of Siver, after on-the-record former employees describe cash handling outside a trust account and threats against staff.
Clutch Justice publishes additional on-the-record accounts, including a threat described by Watson Township Supervisor Kevin Travis that a local newspaper omitted from its own reporting on the endorsement reversal.
Photographs taken around the Allegan County Fair Parade show Siver again among people in “Vote Siver” branded shirts, alongside a person wearing the campaign shirt of 2026 GOP gubernatorial nominee John James.
What the Linked Images Show
The three linked images contain two views of campaign material and one group photograph. The first contains the description of the opponent’s appointment by Governor Whitmer. The second displays the abortion-position message, PAC endorsement, and campaign payment disclosure. The third shows a group posing together, including people wearing Siver-branded clothing. The photograph alone does not establish a speech or public endorsement of a nonjudicial candidate.
Image 1: mailer wording about Whitmer and the opponent
Image 2: abortion-position message, endorsement, and payment disclosure
Image 3: group photograph
Clutch is free to read. It isn’t free to produce. Court records, FOIA requests, research databases, document access, and hundreds of hours of investigation make this work possible.
$10/month ?The Biography Claim: What Remains Unverified
Siver’s biography on the website of Goldman & Associates Law Firm, where he practices, states that his family law practice is “deeply influenced by a legacy of legal service,” and that he has a brother “who served as an attorney for President George W. Bush” and another who works as a public defender in Missouri.
Clutch Justice searched public records, White House archival material, and news coverage of attorneys who served President George W. Bush in any capacity and found no Siver among them. That does not prove the claim false. It means the claim is currently uncorroborated by any record Clutch Justice can find, on a professional biography published to attract clients from a practicing, sitting candidate for judicial office.
The supplied reporting says Clutch Justice sought comment about the biography. An unsuccessful records search or an unanswered challenge does not establish knowing or reckless falsity. Assessing responsibility would also require evidence about who supplied, approved, or used the statement. The relevant standard is in Canon 7(B)(1)(d).
How to File a Complaint
Right Now: Attorney Grievance Commission
If He Is Elected: Judicial Tenure Commission
On the Money: Michigan Bureau of Elections
Campaign Conduct and Accountability
A judicial campaign produces a public record of candidates’ statements and responses. Assessment of that record should distinguish verified conduct, allegations, political opinions, and formal disciplinary findings. No disciplinary finding concerning the mailer is supplied here.
What Further Review Requires
The linked images establish the visible campaign wording and stated payer. Evidence about individual approval, distribution, and any response from the campaign would provide additional context. For the biography, the underlying employment details and evidence of the candidate’s involvement remain relevant. Neither political proximity nor a lack of corroboration should be substituted for proof of a specific violation.
Sources and Verification Scope
The legal revisions above use the linked Michigan authorities. The mailer wording, payment disclosure, and visible content of the group photograph were checked against the three linked images. The historical reporting and biography quotation originate in the supplied article and have not been independently reverified for this revision. Original camera metadata was not examined.
How to Cite This Article
Continue Your Investigation
If this reporting raised more questions, use the Clutch Justice ecosystem to keep going.
