Litigation

Wall Street Journal: More States Weigh Recusal Rules

By Peter Hardin

More states are looking at ways to avoid a perception of bias when judges hear cases involving campaign donors, but in some recent instances the states are shying away from rules requiring recusal over large donations.

A Wall Street Journal article has provided this valuable snapshot of states nationwide wrestling with ethics concerns posed by big-money spending in judicial elections, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Caperton v. Massey decision last year.

The article also highlighted what some see as the heightened need for tough disqualification rules since the high court recently struck down in Citizens United existing restraints on corporate political spending to support or oppose candidates.

Citizens United “will only exacerbate the trend of escalating, arms-race spending in judicial elections as corporations, unions and special interests seek to buy control of the bench,” said J. Adam Skaggs of the Brennan Center for Justice, a partner of the Justice at Stake Campaign.

The  article reports on recent news in Wisconsin and Nevada. In the former, the state Supreme Court turned down proposals for requiring a judge’s recusal when campaign contributions exceed a set level. In the latter, the state Code of Judicial Conduct was revised this month, and judges now are required to step aside when their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” but setting levels of campaign support for triggering recusal was rejected.

Overall, about 10 states started considering new recusal proposals after Caperton. Foes have included some judges and businesses who oppose limits on voters’ right to back candidates with their pocketbooks, and limits on judicial candidates’ raising campaign dollars.

You can learn more about recusal issues in Gavel Grab, and all about Caperton from earlier posts there.

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 26, 2010 (boomark / email).