district. Again, this provision has no bearing on Canon 5(A)(3). That an assistant judge may temporarily perform the duties of a probate judge does not affect the clear import of Canon 5(A)(3), which is concerned with the broader implications of running for one judicial office while performing the duties of another. We thus find no ambiguity in this regard. ¶ 11. Ultimately, respondent maintains that, even if the omission was intentional, the drafters’ departure from the Model Code was “unreasonable” and “does not make any sense.” The argument is essentially a variant of two others. One is that, however unambiguous, Canon 5(A)(3) nevertheless leads to absurd results that the drafters could not have intended. See Chayer v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 2008 VT 45, ¶ 10, 183 Vt. 439, 954 A.2d 783 (<HOLDING>). The other is that Canon 5(A)(3) serves no
holding that we may look beyond text of statute or rule where plain language is unambiguous but would lead to an absurd result that drafters cannot have intended holding that a court can look beyond the statutory language when plain meaning would compel an odd result holding that a statute cannot be construed in a manner that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result recognizing a court must look beyond the plain language of a statute when the literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result holding that courts adopt statutes interpretation that is supported by statutes plain language if statute is unambiguous unless such interpretation would lead to absurd results