That was the conclusion today of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.. The Court found that the failure of a judge on West Virginia’s highest court to recuse himself from a matter in which a sizable donor to the judge’s election campaign had in interest violated federal due process. I've mentioned this case before: Recusal required due to future campaign contributions?
The Court considered the facts from this case extreme. The donor had contributed $3 million to the judge’s campaign, an amount greater than all other donations combined, and made the donation after his company had been hit with a $50 million judgment. The recipient of the donations defeated the incumbent by fewer than 50,00 votes. The judge declined to recuse himself from hearing the matter, and the Court subsequently reversed the judgment on a 3 to 2 decision.
Justice Kennedy authored the 5-4 decision.
As we might have expected, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissented.
Regardless of actual bias, there will always be fears of bias when judicial elections can so easily be influenced by an infusion of cash donations to one candidate or another. In the Caperton decision, the Court noted the potential psychological effect of sizable donations upon the judge.
Such risks are considerably decreased under a merit selection system. Assorted changes in my own life (such as moving to a new firm, etc) have caused me to be remiss in applauding the Nevada Legislature for its second passage of the SJR2, which proposes an amendment to the Nevada Constitution to allow for merit selection and retention elections, rather than elections to select judges.
If the voters show the same wisdom, then the fear of bias resulting from donations to judicial campaigns won’t be an issue in Nevada. I doubt we have any examples from Nevada with the same extreme facts as in Caperton, but enlighten me if I am wrong.
.jpg)
