Sentences with phrase «of judicial recusal»

SB 440 Provides rebuttable presumption of judicial recusal where party, attorney, or law firm in case gave 25 % of all contributions to judge's campaign.

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.»

[4] The petitions sought to amend the Judicial Code of Conduct to provide that recusal is not required in a proceeding based solely on any endorsement or receipt of a lawful campaign contribution from a party or entity involved in the proceeding.

These decisions led to the formation of the Joint Legislative Council Special Committee on Judicial Discipline and Recusal («Special Committee») to study the two issues and recommend legislation to the full Legislature.

The judicial recusal issue gained national prominence last year when the Supreme Court of the United States issued its 5 - 4 decision, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. [2] Caperton involved an extreme set of facts.

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.

The bill would require recusal by any judge or justice «when a party or party's attorney to the proceeding before the judge was a member of the appellate judicial commission or a circuit judicial commission who nominated the judge.»

They include making a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council, seeking McLachlin's recusal from the Nadon matter before the Supreme Court, and, in the most extreme and unlikely of cases, trying to have a judge removed from office.

It has been argued that judicial fundraising has the undesired potential of contributing to an excessive number of recusals.

The most recent American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct instructs judges to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and requires recusal when campaign contributions exceed a certain amount.

In the wake of the Caperton decision, a few states strengthened their recusal rules, but most states have not responded to the ethical dilemmas that have emerged as campaign cash has flooded judicial elections.

Unlike laws allowing legislatures to override court rules or giving politicians more control over judicial selection, recusal rules govern the ethics of judges, and they are only necessary in states in which the high courts have failed to respond adequately to the swelling tide of campaign cash.