From the St. Louis Post Dispatch

Court says Karmeier can hear donor's case
By Kevin McDermott
Post-Dispatch Springfield Bureau

3/17/05

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - In a decision that could affect Illinois' debate over
campaign reform, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Justice Lloyd
Karmeier can't be disqualified from a case because one of the parties has
contributed to his political campaign.
Karmeier, of Nashville, Ill., became the state's newest Supreme Court
justice after a bitter election race last year against Appellate Court
Judge Gordon Maag of Glen Carbon. The $9 million campaign - the most
expensive court race in American history - became a tort-reform battle
between business interests that backed Karmeier and trial lawyers and
consumer groups that backed Maag.
After Karmeier was sworn in, plaintiffs in a lawsuit against State Farm
Insurance filed a motion seeking to bar him from hearing the case, which is
pending before the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs argued that, because Karmeier had received political
donations from State Farm and its supporters, he shouldn't be allowed to
rule on a case involving State Farm. Plaintiffs cited about $350,000 in
contributions that Karmeier's campaign received from State Farm, its
attorneys and entities that supported the company in the court case.
The motion also noted that Maag had heard the same case when it was before
the Fifth District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon, where he upheld a
judgment that State Farm was liable for using after-market parts in vehicle
repairs. If Karmeier participates in the Supreme Court's review of that
case, the plaintiffs argued, he would have to "pass judgment on the opinion
of a bitter political opponent."
Some reformers have said the case highlights concerns about the
politicization of the bench in Illinois, which has no campaign contribution
limits and nothing to stop litigants and attorneys from donating lavishly
to the judges who decide their cases. But others warned that removing
judges from all cases involving their contributors could effectively bring
the state's justice system to a screeching halt.
"Recusal on account of campaign contributions would create an easy avenue
for litigants to disqualify judges they did not like," Richard Painter, a
law professor at the University of Illinois, argued in an affidavit file in
opposition to the motion to bar Karmeier from the case.
"... A system of choosing judges by popular election necessarily involves
campaign contributions and whatever difficulties come with them."
The high court denied the plaintiffs' motion without comment, meaning
Karmeier can participate in deliberations in the case if he chooses.