« Ind. Courts - "Arguments completed in E.C. casino money lawsuit " [Updated] | Main | Courts - Arizona Supreme Court holds that embedded metadata in an electronic public record is subject to disclosure »
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Courts - More problems with elected justices and campaign money [Updated]
SCOTUSBlog's Thursday roundup puts it succinctly:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, by a vote of four to three, adopted rules allowing judges to hear cases involving their campaign contributors. The rules were added to the judicial code of conduct and were proposed by two powerful Wisconsin business groups. Wisconsin is one of the first states to consider recusal rules in light of the Court’s decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.Patrick Marley of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports today in a long story that begins:
Madison — A deeply divided state Supreme Court adopted a rule Wednesday that says endorsements, campaign contributions and independently run ads in themselves are not enough to force a judge off of a case.[Updated 10/31/09] See this story by Zach Lowe of The American Lawyer headed "Wisconsin Becomes First State to Set 'Caperton' Standard."The court adopted the proposal on a 4-3 vote, with those in the majority saying the rule was essential to clarifying policies at a time when justices increasingly face charges of bias. The dissenters said the court was only further clouding the issue.
"It will send a message that making lawful contributions is not a dishonorable thing to do and it's not a dishonorable thing to receive," said Justice Patience Roggensack.
Countered Justice N. Patrick Crooks: "I think what it's going to do is add to the perceptions (of bias) that are apparently out there rather than put them to rest."
Voting for the rule change were Roggensack and Justices David Prosser, Annette K. Ziegler and Michael Gableman. Joining Crooks in his dissent were Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.
The new rule was written by the Wisconsin Realtors Association and business lobbying group Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. The justices rejected competing proposals from the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and former Justice Bill Bablitch, who wanted to require judges to step aside if a lawyer or party to a case gave them more than a certain amount.
The state's longstanding ethical code for judges says they must recuse themselves if their impartiality can reasonably be questioned. The new rule amends that to say campaign spending and endorsements alone aren't enough to require them to step aside.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 29, 2009 04:49 PM
Posted to Courts in general