Former WI judges want ethics rule strengthened

I doubt that it will go anywhere, given the current 5-2 conservative majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but dozens of retired Wisconsin judges are asking the state's high court justices to fix a conflict-of-interest enabling rule approved when conservatives had only a 4-3 edge that made it easier for judges to hear cases involving their campaign donors.

More than 50 retired jurists on Wednesday asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to require judges and justices to step aside when hearing cases involving those who helped bankroll their elections. 

The proposal from the 54 former judges comes seven years after the high court adopted rules that said campaign spending, on its own, isn't enough to force a judge off a case.

What a blot on the state's reputation and an official barrier to equal protection and due process right in the state's courtrooms.

Even if the reform effort fails, it's important that the issue is highlighted, as it's not particularly well known.

I've been writing about this since 2014 - - updated here - - noting the unbelievable reality that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's conservative majority not only approved a recusal rule that allowed state judges and justices to hear cases involving entities which had donated to the campaign committees - - they solicited the recusal rule draft from some of their special interest/donors, then approved it.

Here's what I wrote a few years ago:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As arguments swirl around the objectivity of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in reviewing John Doe matters, and the Journal Sentinel petitions the Court to open a hearing and records on a related issue, I thought I would re-post an item I wrote last summer pointing out how conflicted - - by its own doing  - - is our Supreme Court.

-------------------------------------------------------

As you process the news that the conservative majority on the Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justices today validated Wrong-Way Walker's rollbacks of voting and collective bargaining rights - - and that several of the same Justices' campaigns were significantly funded by the WMC and other corporate special interests which also heavily back Walker - - do not forget that these same Justices let the WMC and the Realtors write for the Court a new ethics rule defining when - - basically, never - - recusals were in order by Judges and Justices to reduce conflicts-of-interest and enhance the appearance of fairness.

Yes, you read that right:

In response to [a tougher, independent proposal], the Wisconsin Realtors Association (“Realtors”) and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (“WMC”) filed separate petitions.[4] The petitions sought to amend the Judicial Code of Conduct to provide that recusal is not required in a proceeding based solely on any endorsement or receipt of a lawful campaign contribution from a party or entity involved in the proceeding. The petitions also sought clarification that a judge does not need to seek recusal where it would be based solely on a party in the case sponsoring an independent expenditure or issue advocacy communication in favor of the judge.

In a 4-3 decision,[5] the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the League’s petition and adopted the Realtors and WMC’s petitions. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, joined by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice N. Patrick Crooks, criticized the majority’s decision to adopt the rules calling it “a dramatic change to our judicial code of ethics.”[6] In particular, the dissent took issue with the majority’s decision to adopt petitions “proposed by special interest groups.”[7] Dissatisfied with the majority’s decision, the dissent urged the Legislature to “engage in further study of judicial recusal.”[8]

Part of a regrettable, embarrassing pattern.

And noted nationally, cited here:

The Center for American Progress surveys the states on judicial ethics, gives Wisconsin an "F," and slaps David Prosser's face at the top of the Internet version of the report. Read it here:

Wisconsin: F (35 points) 

Wisconsin received a failing grade after its state supreme court adopted a recusal rule that literally instructs judges not to recuse themselves from cases involving campaign contributors. 

In 2010, the four-justice conservative majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted to institute a recusal rule written by the Wisconsin Realtors Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, a group that subsequently donated nearly $1 million to support conservative Justice David Prosser’s re-election in 2011.  

The rule says that recusal is not required “based solely on … a lawful campaign contribution.” The majority’s comments that accompany the rule say that requiring recusal for campaign cash “would create the impression that receipt of a contribution automatically impairs the judge’s integrity.”  

In other words, the four justices in the conservative majority are worried that mandatory recusal would lead the public to think that judges are biased.

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: