A recent 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that elected judges should step aside from cases in which large campaign contributions create an appearance of bias provides a measure of vindication for activists who’ve called attention to the issue in Louisiana, but changes nothing here in the short term.
“It would be somewhat juvenile of me to say ‘I told you so,’” says Randy Hayden, executive director of the Louisiana Organization for Judicial Excellence. LOJE promoted legislation last year that created strict recusal standards for judges regarding campaign contributions. The measure was opposed by judges and attorneys, Hayden says, and ultimately defeated. “The Supreme Court made a very gutsy and proper decision in determining what every guy on the street knows: If you give a bunch of money to a judge, you might get a more favorable verdict,” Hayden says.
In Caperton v. Massey, the Supreme Court majority said West Virginia Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself from a case involving a coal executive who donated $3 million to the judge’s campaign. Benjamin provided the deciding vote, overturning a $50 million judgment against A.T. Massey Coal Co. The case is reportedly the basis of the John Grisham novel The Appeal.
The decision raises several thorny issues, including how much of a donation is too much. The four most conservative Supreme Court Justices voted against the verdict; Chief Justice John Roberts said the decision gives no clear guidance to lower court judges. “This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be,” Roberts says.
Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Catherine “Kitty” Kimball says the court will examine the case to see if the Louisiana Code of Judicial Conduct needs to be more specific about recusals, but also says “the West Virginia case was ‘extraordinary’ and ‘extreme,’ so I expect very little impact if any on Louisiana.”
The code of conduct says judges should disqualify themselves when “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or when “disqualification is required by law or applicable Supreme Court rule.” Some situations where recusal is required are spelled out in Act 663 of last year’s regular session; for example, if the judge has an immediate family member involved in the case as an attorney or litigant.
Ginger Sawyer, vice president of political action with the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, also doesn’t see any immediate impact of the ruling here. But she says federal lawsuits in other states may end up in front of the Supreme Court, which could in turn produce more specific guidelines that would affect Louisiana courts.
