Subscribe to our RSS feed
Follow us on Twitter
Pinch hitters could be called up to help the Minnesota Supreme Court handle Norm Coleman’s election-contest appeal if more justices recuse themselves.
Two of the seven high-court justices have already said they won’t deliberate on the case. That’s because Chief Justice Eric Magnuson and Associate Justice G. Barry Anderson served on the State Canvassing Board that oversaw the statewide recount between former Sen. Coleman and his Democratic challenger, Al Franken.
Now court observers are asking whether three more justices might be moved to recuse themselves from Coleman’s appeal. Justices Lori Gildea and Christopher Dietzen donated to Coleman campaigns, while Helen Meyer gave money to Sen. Paul Wellstone, whom Coleman challenged in 2002.
Court spokesman John Kostouros tells the Minnesota Independent that the court needs a quorum of four justices. The court’s practice, in the “pretty unusual” circumstance of coming up short due to multiple recusals, is to recruit substitutes to fill out the court.
Kostouros also notes that it takes three justices to agree to accept a petition to hear a case in the first place.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow observed that a bare quorum could theoretically split 2-2 on the already nearly tied Franken-Coleman election.
Leave a comment
Become a fan on Facebook
5 Comments »
Comment posted April 14, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
I don’t think that any of them have to recuse themselves unless they were involved in one of the lower level trials. Judges have 1st Amendment Rights. Plus, as far as I see it, none of these judges donated to candidates during the last year, nor during the recount efforts. Furthermore, if the donations happened prior to being appointed to the bench, it’s even less relevant.
Our Supreme Court has a long history of being independent of political parties and protecting civil liberties. They will do continue to do this, I believe.
P.S. I voted for the 3rd guy, so don’t go trying to say I am a liberal or conservative hack.
Comment posted April 14, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
DavidD, I say you are a fine fellow. Thank you for the comment.
Comment posted April 14, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
Judges have First Amendment rights, but they also usually value being seen as impartial, so most judges recuse themselves if there’s even the appearance of conflict of interest. The question here is where to draw the line. None have donated to candidates since joining the court (except, as I understand, their own or the colleagues reelection campaigns). Dietzen is in question because he donated to one of the parties in the suit and did so in this election cycle. Gildea is a tougher call because she donated to Coleman, but not in this cycle. Meyer donated to Wellstone, who isn’t a party to this suit, but there’s an obvious connection.
So where does the line get drawn? How willing are justices to accept the risk that they’ll be criticized for not recusing if they’re perceived as ruling according to a bias? My own judgment is Dietzen needs to recuse. The other two, being further away in terms of conflict of interest, can justify staying because to recuse themselves means a lack of quorum.
Comment posted April 14, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
Well the ultimate problem, really, is that some judges donated reportable amounts to campaigns. How do we know that the remaining judges didn’t donate under the limit (I think it’s $250 but it could be $100, I don’t recall right now)? I think that we should allow the judges to make the calls for themselves, the only way the judiciary can remain independent is if the judges feel they are the ones controlling the judicial system rather than having partisan people telling them what to do. What if all of them donated to candidates above the reportable level? Would the whole court have to recuse themselves? That is ridiculous.
Comment posted April 18, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
what reportable level? you give, you report.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment