Judicial Recusal

Last week, the Alabama legislature passed a new law that addresses judicial disqualification in cases involving campaign contributors. The state is an ideal target for recusal reform. From 2000-2009, Alabama ranked first in the nation in campaign fundraising and spending for state supreme court races. The 2006 cycle alone saw $14.5 million in contributions and expenditures.

For the first time in more than 40 years, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has amended its Code of Judicial Conduct. Among the new rules is a provision that requires judges to recuse themselves from hearing cases where the judge knows or learns that a party, a party's lawyer, or the law firm of a party's lawyer has made a direct or indirect contribution(s) to the judge's campaign.

In the wake of the November elections, the California Supreme Court adopted amendments to the code of judicial ethics that address judicial campaigns. The new rules require appellate judges, who stand for retention every twelve years, to recuse themselves from hearing cases involving parties who have made campaign contributions of at least $5000.

Several groups have filed a motion requesting that Justice Paul Newby recuse himself from hearing their challenge to the legislature’s redistricting plan because of the campaign support he received from individuals and groups with a direct stake in the outcome of the litigation.

The plaintiff in a challenge to the constitutionality of the process for selecting the state's appellate judges asked two retired supreme court justices and a former federal judge to recuse themselves from a special five-member panel appointed by Governor Haslam to hear the case, alleging that as former judges "their impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Three justices of the supreme court of appeals recused themselves from hearing a constitutional challenge to the distribution of matching funds under the state’s pilot public financing program for supreme court races.

Justice Michael Gableman recused himself from considering charges of ethical violations against fellow justice David Prosser, making him the fourth justice of the seven-member court to do so and leaving the court without a quorum to hear the case.

A second justice has withdrawn from considering disciplinary charges against Justice David Prosser, with Justice Annette Ziegler joining Justice Pat Roggensack. Prosser has asked the other four justices to recuse themselves as well.

Eleven of 12 court of appeals judges and two of five supreme court justices have recused themselves from hearing an appeal involving a constitutional challenge to the state’s process for selecting appellate judges. John Jay Hooker, who filed and lost a similar suit in the late 1990s, claims that the constitution requires judges to be elected rather than appointed and that elections should be by grand division rather than statewide.

As a result of a split vote on the issue by the supreme court, Justice Michael Gableman will not be required to recuse himself from cases involving a law firm that provided him with free legal representation in an ethics case in 2010.