Though the Supreme Court refused to hear a Don't Ask, Don't Tell challenge today, the more politically significant decision came in a five-to-four ruling that will probably change the way that judges are elected in the 39 states where jurists are held accountable by voters.
The court's center-left majority held that an "independent" $3 million bundled contribution orchestrated by Don Blankenship, the CEO of a coal mining company, to Judge Brent Benjamin -- one that helped get Benjamin elected -- appeared to be directly related to a case that Benjamin, as a newly elected State Supreme Court Justice in West Virginia, would preside over. The case involved a $50 million fraud verdict against the company. $50 million v. $3 million..... not hard to see why Blankenship would try his hand at electing a judge who would be congenial to his interests.
"....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."
In other words, there was reasonable evidence to infer that the company knew that the particular judge would handle the case, and because the contribution was so large, it crossed a threshold marking the boundary of democracy from that of an appearance of corruption. If this sounds like the plot of a John Grisham novel of recent vintage, you're right.
Not to nit-pick, but the Supreme Court didn't invalidate a judicial election. The Court ruled that Caperton's federal due process rights were violated when Justice Benjamin refused to recuse himself in this particular case. Benjamin's still a justice on the West Virginia Supreme Court.
It's not nitpicking, it's actually pretty important and demonstrates the total lack of understanding most commentators have had regarding this case.
Left out of most stories is the fact, inconvenient to the conspiracy theory being spun, is that Benjamin also ruled against Blankenship in several other cases, including one that levied a $243 million fine against Massey Coal.
The dissenting opinion got it right, the Supreme Court has established an unworkable standard for recusal, a "probability of bias" that defies definition (hence the 40 questions in the dissent that is just the tip of the iceberg in unresolved questions of recusal.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org