Wisconsin Supreme Court Debating Recusal Rule
January 21, 2010
Does a $1,000 campaign contribution automatically compromise a judge’s integrity? By a slim 4-3 majority, the Wisconsin Supreme Court appears to believe the answer is “no.” A final vote on a new recusal standard is expected today, but the Court issued a proposed order earlier this week.
In addition to rebutting the insulting assertion that their souls could be bought for a measly $1,000, the majority also recognized the chilling effect such a rule would have on the rights of voters to participate in the election of the public servants who control the judiciary:
“Disqualifying a judge from participating in a proceeding solely because the judge’s campaign committee received a lawful contribution would create the impression that receipt of a contribution automatically impairs a judge’s integrity. It would have the effect of discouraging the broadest possible participation in financing campaigns by all citizens of the state …”
Recusal standards for state supreme courts have become a new battleground. Special interest groups that cannot get their favored candidates elected use them to try to shape the ideological composition of the courts. In Michigan, for example, the high court recently adopted recusal rules that will make it easier for trial lawyers to remove conservative judges from their cases.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorializes that “votes are not fools” and that the real issue is “whether Supreme Court justices will be perceived as just your ordinary common politician, thought to be willing to dance with the folks whose big money brought them to the ball.” (Hat tip: Gavel Grab.)
The idea that every other public official is merely doing the bidding of “big money” contributors is a pretty strong indictment. But if the Journal Sentinel has any actual evidence to suggest that Wisconsin’s justices are offering votes as quid pro quos for contributions, they’re keeping it to themselves.
The fact is, if a judge is truly selling her vote, Wisconsin’s judicial code of conduct surely provides ample means to remove her. If Wisconsin voters – who are “not fools” after all – believe a judge is too cozy with his contributions, they can get rid of him in the next election. Fortunately, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court majority seems to understand that there’s no need to undermine democracy to protect the public from a corrupt judge.