Illinois Supreme Court Candidates Share Views on Judicial Recusal, Campaign Finance

Center for Judicial Performance and Integrity, Judicial Campaigns, Elections, and Selection , , , , , ,

To the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice released the responses of Illinois Supreme Court Candidates to a survey about judicial recusal standards and campaign finance reform.

You can find the complete press release and survey results at our website.

Only three of the five Democratic candidates seeking election in the March 20 primary responded to the questionnaire: Judges Joy Cunningham, Aurelia Pucinski, and Mary Jane Theis. Two other candidates, Democrat Thomas Flannigan and Republican James Riley, did not respond to the survey.

In response to the Judge Cunningham proposed an alternative to blackletter recusal standards. She says:

The main reason for recusal would be to ensure the public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system. Therefore, rather than enacting new rules which will not likely be applicable to every recusal situation, an alternative approach would be to ensure the following.

• Only people of impeccable integrity should be elected to the court on all levels.
• Judges should voluntarily establish protocols, which are transparent and which they would consistently apply to recusal decisions.
• There should be an objective manner to monitor the consistency with which each judge applies the established rules to his or her recusal decisions. 

While we are in favor of clearer recusal standards, we always advocate for strong monitoring and oversight systems.

Cunningham and Aurelia Pucinski also supported the creation of a set of uniform guidelines for recusal where attorneys or litigants before the court have made contributions to the judge’s campaign.

Pucinski took a strong stance on judicial campaign contributions. She writes:

I feel that there is a need to change the standards for recusal. Candidates receive contributions, endorsements and help from a variety of sources. There is nothing in the current rules that requires recusal when a litigant or attorney appearing before you has endorsed your campaign, has contributed, or has represented you in some other action. I think that judges should be responsible for knowing who has contributed to them or endorsed them, that the information should be available on the judge’s website, and that the judge should give a reason for recusal. Ultimately the best way to avoid the need for recusal, either because of an actual or apparent conflict of interest is to avoid the problem before it begins which is why:

  1. I have said “NO” to appellate lawyer contributions and endorsements
  2. I have said “NO” to political party or political boss endorsements

Theis did not respond to this question. And she did not support a system where a certain level of campaign contribution would trigger automatic review for recusal. The Chicago Tribune endorsed Theis over Cunningham in what they characterized as a “close call.”

From the ICPR and Chicago Appleseed press release:

Current Illinois Supreme Court rules direct judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, but the rules do not give direction about how judges should respond when campaign contributors appear before them in court.

In the landmark 2008 decision Caperton v. Massey, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that private contributions in judicial campaigns may necessitate judges to recuse from certain cases, and invited states to establish guidelines addressing it. The American Bar Association last year approved a resolution urging states’ courts to take action.

Ten states have adopted new guidelines to address recusal questions in the context of campaign support. The Illinois Supreme Court has not acted on the ABA’s recommendation.

Learn more about our position on judicial performance at our website, www.chicagoappleseed.org/wordpress.