However, in 2010, Wisconsin Supreme Court had changed the state's recusal rules to exclude campaign contributions and independent expenditures as sole bases
for judicial recusal.
Not exact matches
«If any district attorney believes he or she is unable to prosecute a particular case, there is a well - established
judicial process
for recusal and the appointment of a special prosecutor.»
The petition sought to amend the
recusal rules when a party in an action — or the lawyer or law firm in an action — makes a campaign contribution to or spends money in a
judicial campaign
for a judge presiding in the case.
According to Justice Roggensack, to impose
judicial recusal rules in such circumstances would «nullify the constitutional vote of the contributor, or the lawful choice of the appointer, or chill the lawful speech of those who make independent communications during the course of a campaign
for judicial office.»
I mentioned last month the raft of legislation filed in the Wisconsin Assembly dealing with
judicial recusal, including proposals to require
recusal for certain campaign contributions as well as giving the supreme court the ability to force a justice off a case.
Decision includes information about
judicial bias warranting
recusal as well as guidance on what constitutes an inappropriate referral
for a psychological evaluation.