OT: Judges must recuse themselves in cases that involve big contributors

[Guest guest]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that judges must recuse themselves from

a case if it involves people who spent vast sums of money to help them get

elected to the bench. The article mentions cases where State Farm and the

tobacco industry influenced court decisions because of their large contributions

to judges.

http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=382096

Effect of Supreme Court ruling on donations uncertain

06/11/2009, 9:16 pm Lee, sng2@..., 217-524-5797

SPRINGFIELD — Corporations and interest groups may to think twice

before making big contributions to statewide judicial candidates, due

to a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Voting

5-4, the Court ruled Monday judges must recuse themselves from a case

if it involves people who spent vast sums of money to help them get

elected to the bench..

Dave Dehnel, a political science professor

who teaches constitutional law courses at Augustana College in Rock

Island, said the U.S. Supreme Court did not set strict guidelines on

when a judge would need to recuse himself or herself from a case.

" It's

going to take a while for this to sort out and see how state courts

respond to it. It could be that it'll play itself out and states will

modify their practices and so on, " he said. " On the other hand it could

lead to a lot of litigation, a lot of appeals. "

State Rep.

Dugan, D-Bradley, echoed a concern that U.S. Supreme Court Chief

Justice suggested in his dissenting opinion.

" How

much would a contribution have to be for judges to recuse themselves?

It would be arbitrary depending on what the state feels..to say you're

going to have different judicial limits in one state than another

doesn't make sense to me, " she said.

Joe Tybor, a spokesman

for the Illinois Supreme Court, said the court was not considering the

ruling made by the U.S. Supreme Court and has yet to develop a

timetable for consideration.

Judicial elections in Illinois

are similar to other state-level elections in that there are no limits

on what individuals or groups can contribute to candidates.

Good government groups say that unregulated contributions can color how a judge

decides a case.

State

Supreme Court Judge Lloyd Karmeier, for example, made crucial votes in

two high-profile, big-money cases after his 2004 electoral victory..

In

2004, Karmeier defeated Gordon Maag to become state Supreme Court judge

in the most expensive judicial election to date — both candidates spent

a total of $9.3 million.

State Farm Insurance Company

contributed more than $350,000 directly to Karmeier's campaign and was

associated with larger groups that gave an additional $1 million.

Following

the election, Karmeier did not recuse himself in a state Supreme Court

case in which State Farm stood to lose $456 million in contractual

damages. Karmeier casted the deciding vote to reverse the damages.

In

another case, Karmeier voted to reverse a $10.1 billion verdict against

tobacco giant Philip . Philip ' lawyers had contributed

$16,800 to Karmeier's campaign, while lobbyists who filed briefs on

behalf of Philip had donated at least another $1.3 million.

" Why

a donor would support a candidate for state House or governor is fairly

obvious — they like their stance on the issues. But that very same

basis of support should not be a factor in judicial races. You support

judges because they're fair and honest people, " said on,

assistant director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a nonpartisan

policy group that tracks money in state elections.

Lawmakers and policymakers have considered a number of proposals to limit or

eliminate money in judicial elections.

Carl

Hawkinson, a former state lawmaker and an unsuccessful state Supreme

Court candidate, favored a system based on the federal government,

where the governor would appoint statewide judges.

" Judicial

elections have gotten more expensive in the past decade and they've

turned into more partisan events than they used to be, " he said. " I

would prefer a system where the governor made appointments, subject to

the advice and consent of the Senate. "

Gubernatorial

appointments would dismantle expensive campaigns but at the same time

dismiss citizen participation in the judicial branch, Augustana

professor Dehnel said.

on said public financing of

judicial campaigns would eliminate special interest money, while

maintaining that voters' have a say.

" You want judges to be

separate from the fundraising, to be isolated from the pressure. Judges

are supposed to wear the black robes, they're supposed to be

different, " he said. " It is important to give judges a bias-free source

of money. "

Such a program could be funded mostly by increases to lawyer registration fees,

rather than taxpayer money, on added.

A

commission spearheaded by Gov. Pat Quinn suggested instituting a pilot

program of publicly funded judicial elections as part of a greater

campaign finance reform package.

Lawmakers instead opted to

create a task force to look further into the proposal. The task force

is part of an ethics bill that Quinn has yet to consider.