Judge Deseri Sichler officially censured by New Mexico Supreme Court

A Valencia County magistrate has been publicly censured by the New Mexico Supreme Court for violating rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct in regards to campaign practices.

According to the censure, filed by the court on May 13, during her 2022 campaign for the position, Division III Magistrate Deseri Sichler acted as her own campaign treasurer and personally accepted funds on behalf of her campaign, contrary to state laws pertaining to campaign practices and the Code of Judicial Conduct rules.

“It was an honest mistake,” said Sichler. “I operated in the same manner as I had in other campaigns, which was legal for any position but judge. I didn’t sit down and refresh myself with the rules. What I had been able to do when I ran for treasurer was different than when I ran for judge.”

The censure of Sichler was published in the June 12 edition of the Bar Bulletin, published twice a month by the State Bar of New Mexico.

A complaint was filed against Sichler with the Judicial Standards Commission, which conducted an initial investigation, including an informal conference, which allowed the judge to personally discuss the allegations with the commission.

A notice of formal proceedings against Sichler was filed by the JSC on Aug. 25, 2023, and a stipulation was entered into. As part of the stipulation agreement accepted and confirmed by the Supreme Court, Sichler admitted to committing “willful misconduct” by engaging in acts that violated commission rules and agreed to receive a public censure.

In early March 2022, Sichler listed Russel D. Schmidt as her campaign treasurer on the New Mexico Secretary of State’s Campaign Finance Portal/Campaign Finance Information System, but failed to remove him as treasurer when his consent was withdrawn, and then began to act as her own treasurer until Sept. 16, 2022.

At that same time, the censure says she created the Committee to Elect Deseri Sichler and listed herself as the sole contact person for the committee. All contact information for the committee, advertisements and her website contained her personal contact information, including email, phone number and mailing address.

“The minute I was made aware it was wrong and I was not to be doing it that way — which was in September (2022), I made the correction,” Sichler said.

The judge said an ethics complaint was initially filed with the Secretary of State by Sabrina Rael, who was the Democratic candidate in the Division III race in 2022.

“The state ethics commission dismissed the (SOS) complaint since I came into compliance immediately, but it was refiled with Judicial Standards after I won,” she said. “I explained the same thing. I was aware my actions were wrong. They still investigated because I did conduct my campaign in that way without realizing.”

In the stipulation, contained in the censure, Sichler agreed her conduct violated rules of the code of judicial conduct, including rules that required compliance with the law, promoting confidence in the judiciary, compliance with election campaign laws and rules requiring campaign committees to be established.

“Based on these admitted violations, Judge Sichler agreed to receive a Public Censure to be published in the State Bar of New Mexico Bar Bulletin,” the document reads.

In it’s discussion of the matter, the court notes, “We agree that Judge Sichler’s conduct merits discipline, and for that reason, she should be formally reprimanded by censure.”

The justices continue, writing that in violating the rules, Judge Sichler failed to follow and comply with election campaign laws and failed to uphold the public’s confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judicial election process.

“Acting as treasurer allowed Judge Sichler to know who contributed to her campaign and know the monetary amounts of those contributions. Judge Sichler had intimate knowledge of campaign rules, having sought the office of treasurer for Valencia County in 2020,” the discussion continues. “Judge Sichler’s conduct created actual impropriety by violating (state statute pertaining to campaign practices, NMSA Section 1-19-29) and is contrary to (Code of Judicial Conduct) Rule 21-102 (“A judge ... shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”).”

Additionally, the rules prohibit a judge from seeking to discover who has contributed to either the judge’s own campaign or to the judge’s opponent ... in part, that “Candidates shall not personally solicit or personally accept contributions for their own campaigns ... The candidate shall take reasonable steps to ensure that his or her campaign committee complies with applicable provisions of this code and other applicable law.”

The state’s Campaign Reporting Act requires judicial candidates to have a treasurer who is not the candidate.

“This court has considered the admitted facts and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the approved stipulation, and we hereby publicly censure Judge Sichler for willfully violating the established rules and standards that govern every New Mexico judge’s conduct,” the censure concludes. “We issue this public censure to strengthen the public’s confidence in the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary and to remind all judges that misconduct which erodes the public’s confidence will not be tolerated.”

Sichler said her experience can be a lesson for candidates in the future.

“I had read that same paragraph before but under the mind-set of running for treasurer and missed the exception for candidates for running for judicial office,” she said. “Candidates have a lot on their plate and make mistakes trying to handle things on their own. Campaigns are expensive and a campaign manager is an added expense, but well worth it to save you from that kind of trouble.”