In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that campaign contributions in judicial elections can affect due process. The case, Caperton v. Massey, deals with a West Virginia Court of Appeals judge who refused to recuse himself after receiving a $3 million campaign contribution from a litigant who, during the election, knew he would soon be facing a $50 million case.I’m no legal expert, but Rick Hasen over at the Election Law blog has looked over the ruling, and says the standard imposed by the decision essentially comes down to the following:
We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias–based on objective and reasonable perceptions–when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when the case was pending or imminent. The inquiry centers on the contribution’s relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election.Which is clearly a still-imperfect standard. The dissent includes a number of questions about this standard that will have to be cleared up in future cases, and it’s unclear just how this will affect judicial elections in the 39 states where they’re held.Read more at Election Law.