Litigation

Mich. Recusal Rule Wins Editorial Applause

By Peter Hardin

A new rule governing disqualification of judges in Michigan has won a resoundingly favorable review from the Detroit Free Press and an enthusiastic, why-not-here response from a newspaper in neighboring Ohio.

The new  rule, adopted by Michigan’s Supreme Court on a 4-3 vote, would let a majority of state Supreme Court justices disqualify one of their own from hearing a case, in the event of an apparent bias or conflict of interest. It replaces a practice whereby only the justice in question decides whether to step aside.

Concern about accountability lies at the heart of the Detroit editorial, entitled “Assuring judicial impartiality.”  The editorial examines some of the acerbic exchanges coming from the highly divided court, and reasons for concern about appearances of judicial impropriety and the mechanics of the new rule. It concludes:

“There is no reason why it is in the public’s interest for a justice accused of improper bias to be the sole judge of his or her own impartiality. The new disqualification rule is an overdue step toward greater accountability on the part of those who are, for practical purposes, the last stop on the road to justice.”

The deliberative tone of the editorial contrasts with  dramatic “feuding” by the justices that is noted in a Detroit Free Press column asking, “Can the back-biting, name-calling and playground-level cruelty that pervades Michigan’s highest court really get any worse? State Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan thinks so.”

Meanwhile the Toledo Blade embraces the new recusal rule in next-door Michigan, and goes a step further:

“The new rule is unlikely to put an end to the unseemly partisan bickering that has been a recent hallmark of the Wolverine State’s highest court. But it should reassure Michiganders that they now have more protection against justice being denied by a single judge who refuses to admit that he or she has a conflict of interest.

“Public institutions need all the credibility they can muster these days, and this change is a welcome development that courts in more states (Ohio?) would do well to follow.”

You can learn more about the Michigan debate from Gavel Grab, and about recusal from Justice at Stake’s resource page on the issue.

Full post as published by The Gavel on December 07, 2009 (boomark / email).