Miscellaneous

An Alternative Approach to Fairness: New Recusal Rules

By Anne Skove, Esq.

By now, we've all heard the arguments pro and con for electing judges. The trouble is, where elections are occurring, it's hard for even the best intended to explain to voters that they will soon be merely re-voters.

Rather than change the way judges are selected, Michigan has set forth proposed new recusal standards.

Actually, three different proposals are on the table. The first is the most traditional, leaving the decision to the justice (note that it would apply only to the state court of last resort).

A second option (cleverly called Alternative B) allows recusal requests to be filed by litigants or another justice(!). (One wonders whether the latter is a good idea in Michigan, where members of the highest court get along about as well as soccer hooligans from rival hamlets). B includes perceived bias (rather than garden-variety bias) as a factor. An appeal process is part of B.

The third permutation, called -- you guessed it, Alternative C! -- requires the ruling to be published and contain reasons for the decision.

The proposals are open for comment until August 1, 2009.

See Proposed New Mich. Supreme Court Recusal Standards up for Review, Ed Brayton, Michigan Messenger (April 27, 2009).

Full post as published by court-o-rama.org on April 28, 2009 (boomark / email).