Should judges recuse themselves from cases involving campaign donors?
"Yes," say retired Supreme Court Justice Robert Utter and attorney Charlie Wiggins. The two have an opinion piece in the Seattle Times arguing for mandatory recusal. The issue comes up because of a case out of West Virginia.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the question in Caperton v. Massey, in which a judge who benefited from $3 million in support refused to withdraw from the case. He then voted with two other judges to reverse a $50 million jury verdict against the company. The court will hear argument Tuesday and decide by the end of June whether the judge's participation in the case violated the due process right to an impartial judge.
Could this happen in Washington? Justice Utter and Mr. Wiggins point to judicial campaign spending in our state, which hit record levels in 2006. The authors call for a solution.
A proposed Washington state court rule now under consideration would require a judge to step down from a case if a party provided the judge with substantial campaign support. The rule is based on totaling all money spent by a party (or a party's lawyer) to support a judge's election.
Nearly half of the states in the U.S. elect their judges, so the Supreme Court's ruling will have a signficant impact.
