State Court Judicial Campaign Contributions and Disqualification
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Addresses the ABA Section of Litigation Concerning State Court Judicial Campaign Contributions and Disqualification
On January 9, 2009, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, retired Justice of the United States Supreme Court, joined a panel of experts at the Section of Litigation’s Winter Leadership meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona, to consider the question of state court judicial campaign contributions and disqualification. The subject is a timely one, given that Caperton v. Massey, is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court. The question presented in Caperton is whether and under what circumstances due process requires elected state court judges who accept campaign contributions to be disqualified from hearing cases in which the judge received a campaign contribution from either a litigant or a lawyer involved in the case.
Audio Recordings
| Audio files are in MP3 format. Right-click and choose "Save Target As..." to save to your computer.
- » Introduction and Remarks from Sandra Day O’Connor, Response by ABA President Tommy Wells
Length: 24:36, Size: 24MB - » Opening Remarks from Justice Carol Hunstein
Length: 12:36, Size: 7MB - » Opening Remarks from Judge Barbara Lynn and Doreen Dodson
Length: 21:55, Size: 12MB - » Issues Discussions from All Panelists
Length: 26:44, Size: 15MB
Panelists
- Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice, Retired, Supreme Court of the United States
- H. Thomas Wells, President of the American Bar Association; Partner, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Birmingham, AL
- Honorable Barbara Lynn, United States District Court Judge, Northern District of Texas; Chair, ABA Judicial Division
- Honorable Carol W. Hunstein, Presiding Justice, Georgia Supreme Court
- Doreen Dodson, immediate past Chair, ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence; Partner, The Stolar Partnership LLP, St. Louis, MO
- Moderator: Robert L. Rothman, Chair, ABA Section of Litigation; Partner, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, Atlanta, GA
More Information on Caperton v. Massey
The Caperton v. Massey case involves a decision by the West Virginia Supreme Court—the only appellate court in that state and one that only hears cases on a discretionary basis—to reverse a $50 million judgment against a coal mining company, A. T. Massey Coal Company, whose CEO had contributed approximately $3 million directly and indirectly to support the candidacy of a lawyer, Brent Benjamin, for a seat on the West Virginia Supreme Court. Mr. Benjamin was successful in his campaign to unseat an incumbent justice and subsequently cast the deciding vote—initially to grant discretionary review and on the merits, then upon reconsideration again on the merits—in favor of Massey. Justice Benjamin twice denied motions to disqualify himself from the case. The motions were based on his perceived lack of impartiality arising from the generous support by Massey’s CEO of his candidacy both directly and through the efforts of a 527 independent committee that aggressively opposed the reelection of the challenged incumbent. Justice Benjamin found the motions speculative and unsupported by evidence of any actual bias on his part.
The decision in the Caperton case will have a substantial impact in the 39 states in which judges are elected. In some of those states, the judges initially are appointed, usually by the governor. In other states, they must run for office in the first instance either to fill an open seat or to unseat an incumbent. Some states have non-partisan judicial elections and others have partisan races.
In either scenario, in order to mount an effective campaign, the incumbent typically must seek to raise campaign contributions. Those contributions frequently and understandably come from local citizens who may be either current or likely future litigants, or lawyers who appear in that judge’s courtroom. This is an issue of burgeoning importance as the amount of money that must be raised by judges to campaign effectively, particularly in elections for seats on state high courts, is increasing dramatically.
