Litigation

WI Court Adopts Controversial Recusal Rules

By Peter Hardin

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, for the second time in recent months, has adopted rules stating that campaign contributions or independent expenditures made in a prior judicial campaign will not require a judge’s stepping aside from a case involving a supporter.

A divided court first adopted such rules in October , but withdrew its vote in December when one justice suggested “fine-tuning” was needed for language in petitions seeking the rules. This week, the Supreme Court formalized its new rules, once again with a 4-3 vote and statements by justices reflecting sharp disagreement.

Justice David Prosser said what the rule “has always envisioned is [that] the mere receipt of a lawful contribution with nothing else is not grounds for recusal,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

“I am just dumbfounded,” protested Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. She voiced concern that the rules allowed judicial campaigns to seek contributions from parties with a case before the court.

The  recusal policy was based on separate petitions submitted by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors Association. More detail about the court’s adoption of the amended rules is available from the State Bar of Wisconsin.

Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice  submitted written testimony to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The groups said proposed changes to the state?s recusal rules were “in clear conflict with the holding  of the United States Supreme Court in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.? That 2009 Supreme Court ruling ordered a West Virginia judge off a case involving a coal executive who had spent $3 million to help elect him.

To learn more, see earlier Gavel Grab postings,  or visit Justice at Stake?s page on recusal reform.

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 22, 2010 (boomark / email).