Litigation

WI Recusal Debate Flares Anew

By Peter Hardin

Although the Wisconsin Supreme Court has at least temporarily rescinded a new rule on judicial recusal, a vigorous debate over recusal standards has continued.

The court?s recusal policy, passed in a 4-3 vote on Oct. 28, declared that a judge should ?never? recuse solely on the basis that a litigant had financially supported his or her election.

A defense recently written by Wisconsin Justice Patience Roggensack (see Gavel Grab) amounts to a “tortured defense of what is legalized bribery,” the Madison Capital Times now says in an editorial.  The newspaper borrowed the term “legalized bribery” from Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., who helped push through the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a landmark campaign finance law co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Meanwhile, Melanie G. Ramey, president of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Fund, wrote a commentary for the same newspaper, entitled “High court has another chance to get it right on recusal.”

Ramey detailed a “heated discussion that revealed a sharp division in the court” when justices recently revisited the recusal rule during an administrative conference–before they voted to rescind it. The recusal proposal the court had adopted was recommended “word-for-word” by two powerful business associations, Ramey wrote. She added:

“The whole point of recusal standards is to protect not only the impartiality but also the credibility of our courts. You can’t do that by letting moneyed lobbying interests write the rules.”

To learn more about the Wisconsin debate, take a look at earlier Gavel Grab posts.  You also can read a detailed discussion of recusal rules at Justice at Stake?s in-depth  issues guide for the Caperton v. Massey recusal decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Full post as published by The Gavel on December 14, 2009 (boomark / email).