news-record.com

Did a West Virginia coal company executive's $3 million investment in a judicial campaign pay off when the judge decided a case in his favor?

The U.S. Supreme Court didn't exactly say so in its 5-4 Caperton v. Massey decision last week. But it found the circumstances troubling enough to rule that the judge should have removed himself from the case.

The ruling should trigger an examination in North Carolina of how to protect judicial integrity and impartiality.

The details of Caperton v. Massey are so egregious that one member of the West Virginia Supreme Court complained of "a cancer in the affairs of this court." In short, Massey Coal Co. President Don Blankenship spent $3 million in 2004 to help Brent Benjamin win a seat on the state's highest court. Later, Benjamin cast the deciding vote to reverse a $50 million lower-court judgment against Blankenship's company. Benjamin refused requests to recuse himself, denying that Blankenship's extraordinary campaign support compromised his impartiality.

The U.S. Supreme Court could not establish bias on Benjamin's part. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, found that the circumstances created an intolerably high probability of bias. The question, however, is how to make that judgment.

"The difficulties of inquiring into actual bias ... simply underscore the need for objective rules," Kennedy wrote.

North Carolina's rules are spelled out in its Code of Judicial Conduct. John Martin, chief judge of the N.C. Court of Appeals and chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission, pointed out an important feature:

"On motion of any party, a judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality may reasonably be questioned ... ."

If the judge declines to step aside, the motion is assigned to another judge for a ruling, Martin said. Finally, anyone has a right to file a complaint against a judge with the Judicial Standards Commission.

There's nothing in the North Carolina code about campaign contributions, however. Although most statewide judicial candidates participate in a public campaign financing system, that's not a safeguard against big-money influence. Blankenship contributed only $1,000 directly to Benjamin's campaign. He gave $3 million for so-called independent expenditures on Benjamin's behalf. The same thing could happen in North Carolina.

"The real problem is the election of judges," Martin said.

He's right. Political donors influence governors, legislators and other elected officials. Judges are expected to act with greater impartiality, and they should be challenged when there are reasonable questions. But money impacts elections, and judges may not be blind to where it comes from.

As long as North Carolina holds judicial elections, it may create opportunities for situations like the West Virginia case. Its "objective rules," which don't address campaign funds, might not provide enough protection.