Court Reins in Judges

Court reins in judges

Justices say elected judges must recuse themselves from cases involving big donors.

BY MARK SHERMAN, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.

By a 5-4 vote in a case from West Virginia, the court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit filed against the company of the most generous supporter of his election deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair hearing.

"Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when -- without the consent of the other parties -- a man chooses the judge in his own cause," Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court.

With multimillion-dollar judicial election campaigns on the rise, the court's decision Monday could have widespread significance. Justice at Stake, which tracks campaign spending in judicial elections, says that judges are elected in 39 states and that candidates for the highest state courts have raised more than $168 million since 2000.

"Judicial elections have become more expensive, more negative and more subject to influence by special interest groups," said Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of Massachusetts, president of the Conference of Chief Justices.

The West Virginia case involved more than $3 million spent by the chief executive of Massey Energy Co. to help elect state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin. At the same time, Massey was appealing a verdict, which now totals $82.7 million with interest, in a dispute with a local coal company. Benjamin refused to step aside from the case, despite repeated requests, and was part of a 3-2 decision to overturn the verdict.

The coal company, Harman Mining Co., and its president, Hugh Caperton, took the case to the high court.

"Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge's recusal, but this is an exceptional case," Kennedy said.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy's opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent that he shares concerns about maintaining an impartial judiciary.

"But I fear that the court's decision will undermine rather than promote these values," Roberts said.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

In North Carolina

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision may not have an immediate effect on elected judges who preside over North Carolina courtrooms.

It may, however, work its way into the state's judicial code of conduct by identifying campaign contributions as a specific concern, said Damon Circosta, director the N.C. Center for Voter Education. Traditionally, lawyers and businesses with matters in front of courts tend to be the biggest contributors, Circosta said.

The state already offers optional public financing for statewide judicial races, including the 15 judges who sit on the N.C. Court of Appeals and the seven N.C. Supreme Court justices.

In the 2008 election, 11 of 12 judges running in state appellate races opted for the public financing model, according to Chase Foster of N.C. Voters for Clean Elections.

Cheri Beasley, a former Cumberland County district court judge who was elected in November to the N.C. Court of Appeals, said the public financing she received this year freed her from having to ask for money during the race. "It's tough for judges to remain unbiased and to fulfill their duties as judges," she said.

Staff writer Sarah Ovaska