Litigation

USA Today Poll: Judges Shouldn?t Help Campaign Backers

By Lissette Villarruel

 An excellent article from USA Today discusses Caperton v. Massey in detail, and in a new poll shows that the public overwhelmingly believes that judges should not handle cases involving campaign supporters.

?The notion of impartial judges is central to the U.S. legal system, and the West Virginia case ? to be heard by the high court March 3 ? has become Exhibit A in the debate over how high-dollar state judicial elections can raise questions about the fairness of some rulings,? writes USA Today reporter Joan Biscupic.

In its front-page story, USA Today highlights the details surrounding the West Virginia case, in which a coal executive  spent $3 million on the state Supreme Court justice, who later cast the deciding vote in favor of his company. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments March 3 on whether now-Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin had a constitutional obligation to step aside.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed  judicial recusal in the context of campaign contributions, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll recently discovered that:

89% of those surveyed believe the influence of campaign contributions on judges? rulings is a problem, and 52% deem it a ?major? problem. More than 90% of the 1,027 adults surveyed said judges should be removed from a case if it involves an individual or group that contributed to the judge’s election campaign.

USA Today also quoted the Conference of Chief Justices, a national organization of high state judges, who stated in their impartial amicus brief for Caperton that (more…)

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 17, 2009 (boomark / email).