Comments on: And then there were two? Recusals in Coleman case could whittle state high court below quorum

By: Bill Mitchell

Bill Mitchell — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:29:57 +0000

what reportable level? you give, you report.

By: DavidD

DavidD — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:52:28 +0000

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.

By: Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:18:37 +0000

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.

By: Chris Steller

Chris Steller — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:58:05 +0000

DavidD, I say you are a fine fellow. Thank you for the comment.

By: DavidD

DavidD — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:53:32 +0000

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.