Litigation

JAS Applauds New York?s Recusal Reform

By Peter Hardin

The Justice at Stake Campaign is applauding a tough new rule aimed at removing the influence of campaign cash from courtrooms in New York State, saying it will help protect public trust in our courts.

“By strengthening its disqualification rules, New York’s court system has sent a powerful and positive message that its courts can not be seen as for sale,”  Bert Brandenburg, JAS executive director, wrote in a letter Monday to Jonathan Lippman, chief judge for the State of New York Court of Appeals.

Brandenburg and Adam Skaggs, counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, praised Judge Lippman in the letter for his leadership in championing changes to existing rules.

New York now has disqualification rules that unquestionably “are among the nation’s strongest and most unambiguous in preventing judges from hearing cases involving those who spend heavily to elect them,” the letter added.

The new disqualification rule, described in Gavel Grab earlier, will prohibit hundreds of elected judges from hearing cases involving parties or lawyers who gave $2,500 or more to their campaigns in the prior two years.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark Caperton v. Massey ruling in 2009, at least eight states have strengthened their disqualification rules. They have taken varying approaches. Caperton highlighted nationally the threat posed by special interest spending in judicial elections.

At a time that spending on judicial elections “has soared to unprecedented levels” nationwide, the groups’ letter said, “more than ever, the public needs to be assured that special interests cannot buy favorable treatment from elected courts.”

In the Brennan Center’s blog, Skaggs wrote a commentary lauding Justice Lippman’s role in tackling an “issue of unparalleled importance to the judiciary.” Skaggs’ essay was entitled, “Victory for Recusal Reform in New York.” The Brennan Center is located at the New York University School of Law.

Skaggs analyzed the New York rule. He said it is “arguably the nation’s most restrictive” for leaving no discretion to judges to determine whether disqualification will be necessary; court administrators will make the decision.

It is not the most restrictive rule in terms of the $2,500 threshold set for triggering disqualification, he wrote. The applicable threshold is $840 in Arizona and $50 in Utah. Skaggs also pointed out that the New York rule does not cover independent campaign expenditures.

Skaggs urged the American Bar Association to exert leadership on the judicial disqualification issue; it has had a model rule under consideration (see Gavel Grab). He quoted Chief Judge Lippman as saying:

?Nothing could be more important for the judiciary than to have the public see that we?re neutral arbiters of disputes. . . . If we don?t have that, we don?t have anything.?

In New York Law Journal, a related article was headlined, “Recusal is Step in Right Direction, Bar Leaders Say.” A Times Herald-Record editorial was entitled, “New rule removes conflict on judges.” The New York Times published an editorial with the headline, “Bold Step for Fair Courts in New York.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 15, 2011 (boomark / email).