• Home
• Voting & Democracy
  • Go Vote
  • N.C. Voter Guide
  • VoterRadio.com
• Research & Publications
  • Follow the Money
  • NCCVE Research
• Multimedia
  • The Voter Update Podcast
• For the Media
  • News Releases
  • Media Advisories
  • Contact NCCVE
• About Us
  • Board of Directors
  • Staff
  • Contribute to NCCVE
  • Contact Us
• Search

For Immediate Release
Monday, March 09, 2006

National Contact Information:
Dorothee Benz, Brennan Center for Justice, 212-998-6318
Deborah Goldberg, 212-998-6748
James Sample, 212-992-8648; 406-690-3947 (c)

North Carolina Contact Information:
Chris Heagarty, N.C. Center for Voter Education,
919-839-1200

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review in Avery v. State Farm:
No Guidance Offered on Recusal for Judges and their Campaign Contributors

RALEIGH – The United States Supreme Court declined Monday to review the case of Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. The case involved an Illinois Supreme Court justice who declined to recuse himself from a case involving one of his biggest campaign contributors.

In an amicus brief, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and many cosigners, including the N.C. Center for Voter Education, had asked the court to hear the case and help states understand when recusal is required under the Constitution.

“The reason people should care about this ruling is that it has an impact on how we perceive the fairness and impartiality of our courts,” said Chris Heagarty, executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education. “Our research study from last year shows that while most voters have a fairly positive opinion about our judges, 86 percent of voters are concerned that large campaign contributions to judges can too often lead to conflicts of interest. Ninety-four percent, an overwhelming number, think that campaign contributions made to elected officials have an influence over their decisions. Fifty-seven percent think these contributions have a great deal of influence.”

Avery is the fallout from the most expensive state judicial campaign in United States history, the 2004 race for Illinois Supreme Court justice. Illinois Appellate Judge Gordon Maag and then-circuit Judge Lloyd Karmeier raised a total of approximately $9.3 million in political contributions – nearly double the previous national record for a state judicial election.

Karmeier, who received over $350,000 in direct contributions from State Farm's employees, lawyers and others involved with the company and/or the case, and over $1 million more from groups of which State Farm was a member or to which it contributed, won both the fundraising battle and the election.

Once on the court, Justice Karmeier declined to recuse himself from Avery, which had been pending before the Illinois Supreme Court during the campaign. Karmeier then cast the deciding vote on a contract claim, overturning a $456 million verdict against State Farm.

In North Carolina, following a 2000 race for Chief Justice of the N.C. Supreme Court that topped $1 million dollars, the state legislature passed the Judicial Campaign Reform Act to provide candidates an alternative to this type of campaigning.

Under a voluntary system, candidates for N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals can agree to limit their fundraising to small donation from state voters and can qualify for public matching funds to run their campaigns. However, recusal standards are still a concern for the N.C. Center for Voter Education and others.

“There are judges at all levels who may face a situation where there is a potential conflict of interest, either a situation where an attorney presenting a case before them has given a large sum of money or where the judge, as a candidate, has made statements implying favor or bias for one side of a case over the other,” explained Heagarty. “Many judges will remove themselves from a case if a conflict is apparent, but there are no official standards. A conflict that one judge might step aside for, another judge might not see as a problem. Rather than a standard set of guidelines for everyone to use it really is, forgive the pun, a judgment call.”

“The Court's decision not to grant review is unfortunate,” said Deborah Goldberg, director of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. “But states can still protect both the actuality and the appearance of impartial justice in their courts by taking affirmative steps to strengthen their recusal rules.”

###

More information:

The Brennan Center published an editorial about Avery today on Slate.com, available at: http://www.slate.com/id/2137529/ The Brennan Center's Fair Courts Project works to preserve fair and impartial courts and their role as the ultimate guarantor of equal justice in our constitutional democracy. For more information see www.brennancenter.org.

The N.C. Center for Voter Education has more information available about the Judicial Campaign Reform Act at: http://www.ncjudges.org.