Recusal

"Few actions jeopardize public trust in the judicial process more than a judge’s failure to recuse in a case brought by or against a substantial contributor."

Under the American Bar Association Model Code, judges are instructed to step aside not just when they are actually biased, but whenever “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Some form of this rule exists in nearly every state.

Stronger recusal rules are needed today, as unprecedented levels of campaign cash are being spent in state judicial elections by parties who appear in court. The U.S. Supreme Court declared, in Caperton v. Massey, that campaign spending can damage a litigant's right to a fair trial. The court also has declared repeatedly that states may establish recusal rules tougher than required by the Constitution.

Polls show 85 to 90 percent of the public believe that judges should not hear cases involving major campaign supporters, and three in four Americans believe campaign  assistance might affect a judge’s courtroom decisions. To advance fair and impartial justice, bar leaders and judges are working to write stronger recusal rules.

The threat of special-interest spending to the integrity of elected state courts was escalated by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010, and stronger recusal rules are among reforms available to assure the public that justice is not for sale.

Resources on Recusal

What Do You Think: Should Judges Hear Cases Involving Financial Supporters? (Click the link to join the discussion)