Illinois needs tougher recusal standards
A new lawsuit seeking to restore a $1 billion judgment against an insurance company because of its alleged heavy involvement in the campaign of an Illinois Supreme Court justice illustrates the need for Illinois to adopt judicial recusal standards.
The whopper of a lawsuit argues that Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who won a 2004 election after a bruising campaign that set a national spending record, should not have participated in a case involving State Farm because of the company’s significant campaign involvement.
Karmeier participated in a majority decision that overturned $1 billion judgment against the insurance company. The new lawsuit claims that State Farm gave Karmeier’s campaign between $2.5 and $4 million worth of campaign support, including previously unreported campaign management and assistance.
The class action lawsuit claims that State Farm's "extraordinary financial and political support for Justice Karmeier's 2004 campaign created a constitutionally-unacceptable risk of bias." By not recusing himself from the case, the lawsuit's plaintiffs allege they were denied their due process rights.
Whatever the merits of the suit, it drives home the need for standards on when judges should step away from cases involving campaign supporters or contributors.
In the 2009 landmark Caperton v. Massey decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that elected judges should step away from participating in cases involving significant campaign supporters or contributors because their impartiality may be questioned. That case involved a West Virginia Supreme Court justice who ruled in favor of a coal company whose CEO had provided about $3 million in support of his election.
In the wake of the Caperton decision, several states have adopted recusal standards, some better than others. And the American Bar Association, recognizing the need for action, last month passed a resolution calling on states to adopt standards.
But in Illinois, court rules direct judges to disqualify themselves when their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," and proposes several occasions where this may be the case – none of address campaign contributions or support.
As a result, it's largely up to judges to decide when they should step away from cases, which has the potential to create the perception that justice can be bought.
Illinois' courts should provide more clear direction on recusal. The public's faith in the judiciary -- and impartial justice -- are at risk.
