Litigation

New Campaign, Recusal Rules Proposed in TN

By Peter Hardin

The Tennessee Bar Association, citing the “explosion of contested, big money campaigns for judicial office,” has proposed new ethics rules for judges.

The proposed rules would reduce restrictions on judges participating in politics, while setting stricter guidelines for disqualification of judges when a perceived or real conflict of interest exists, according to an article in The Tennesseean.

A petition proposing the changes to the Judicial Code of Conduct was submitted to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

The petition cited a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of a West Virginia judge who declined to step down from hearing a case involving a major campaign benefactor, according to a Tennessee Bar Association press release. The case was Caperton v. Massey, from 2009.

The Tennesseean reported that the proposal “loosens restrictions on a judge’s political activity by doing away with prohibitions on campaign contributions and purchasing tickets to political fundraisers.”

The proposal has “language requiring a judge to step down [from hearing a case] if campaign support is to a level that would cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality,” or if “a judge has made public comments that would appear to commit the judge to reach a particular decision,” according to the newspaper.

In addition, the proposal provides for a timely appeal process if a judge has been asked to step aside from a case, and refuses.

If the state Supreme Court accepts the proposal, Tennessee would join other states that have adopted American Bar Association guidelines.

To learn more about Caperton, check out Justice at Stake’s resource page about the case or amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Full post as published by The Gavel on March 01, 2011 (boomark / email).