Looking at the membership protocol for the organization in question, it doesn’t appear to practice invidious discrimination.
According to the mission statement, a purpose of this organization is to “Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community.”
I think the offense might fall under 2A instead in the realm of impropriety by failing to appear impartial.
“Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#c