Recently, the  New York Times published an editorial,  A Reform for Fair Courts which praised the Tennessee Supreme Court for  leadership on recusal reform: 

“With rising special-interest spending in state judicial elections, there is an urgent need to protect judicial integrity from the flood of campaign cash. Tennessee is leading the way with a new rule prohibiting judges from hearing cases when campaign spending by lawyers or litigants raises a reasonable question of their impartiality. . . .Tennessee’s good model should help prod court leaders in other jurisdictions to follow suit. Campaign spending problems have plagued judicial races in states like Illinois, Alabama and Pennsylvania. A sensible rule on recusal would significantly increase public confidence in judicial integrity.”  

The issue about recusal reform is a very hot topic among many judges as well as The American Bar Association.  

As it is currently written, the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct provides that judges should recuse themselves when they receive campaign contributions over a threshold amount determined by each state that decided to adopt the ABA proposal.  An alternative proposal would eliminate state by state threshold amounts and would instead require recusal when contributions or other support are high enough to be “substantially important to the judge’s most recent campaign.” The proposal would also create a rebuttable presumption that judges know “the amount, source and value of direct and indirect campaign contributions” if they are matters of public record and reasonably available.

No one can reasonably claim that money is a fundamental problem in judicial elections. Money is at times hard to raise, hard to figure out how to effectively spend, and as Caperton held, can create appearances that have the potential to undermine the legitimacy of judicial decisions.  But the solution may well be as complex as the problem itself.  For example, Judge Annette Scieszinski, a trial judge in Iowa, said she initially backed a set contribution amount that would require recusals when the Iowa Supreme Court considered changes to its ethics code. But she changed her mind after she learned of a flaw in that requirement: Litigants who wanted to disqualify a judge would make certain they made contributions exceeding the threshold amount. 

Please post your comments and share your thoughts about how judges can be deal with this issue.