judgesonmerit.org

Not long ago we reported that there was another recusal petition involving a West Virginia judge in a case involving Massey Coal Company, the same company involved in Caperton v. Massey (the recusal case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court).  Judge Michael Thornsbury now has refused to recuse himself from the case.

According to the Charleston Gazette, “Thornsbury said allegations made against him by lawyers for local residents were “false and/or misleading” and that he should not have to step down from the lawsuit.”  The plaintiffs had alleged a friendship between the judge and Massey CEO George Blakenship, as well as the judge’s  appointment of a business partner as administrator over a medical monitoring program.

Also at issue was financial support for the judge’s campaign by one of Massey’s lawyers.  Regarding allegations about the defense attorney’s hosting of a fundraiser for the judge, the judge’s response to the recusal petition explained:

“The fact that both plaintiffs lawyers and defense lawyers sponsored the event shows the high esteem Judge Thornsbury is held by the entire bar,” wrote Jackson Kelly lawyer Daniel L. Stickler. “It was the shared belief of the sponsors of the event that Judge Thornsbury is a fair and impartial judge who never showed bias or prejudice towards any litigant appearing before him.”

It doesn’t matter that members of the plaintiffs and defense bar supported the judge’s campaign. The point is that someone felt uncomfortable having a judge presides over their case once they learned the other party was represented by one of the judge’s campaign supporters.  No one should ever have to worry that a judge’s decisions could be swayed by campaign contributions.

Judicial elections create an enviroment in which candidates need money to finance their campaigns.  The most likely sources of that money are lawyers, law firms and entities that frequently litigate in the state courts.  When judges later preside over cases involving lawyers or parties who financially supported their campaigns, it creates the perception that justice might be for sale. This undermines public trust and confidence in the courts and should not be permitted to continue. The solution is to get judges out of the fundraising business.

A little over a month has passed since the Caperton decision, and things still seem to be rotten in the state of West Virginia. Both the Charleston Gazette and the Associated Press (via Forbes.com) are reporting new accusations of judicial impropriety in a case involving Massey Energy, the coal company that was accused in Caperton of buying a WV Supreme Court Justice through campaign donations.

County Judge Michael Thornsbury is presiding over a separate pollution case involving Massey.  A motion filed by plaintiff’s attorneys to have Judge Thornsberry removed from the case alleges that seven thousand dollars donated by Massey’s lawyers to the Judge’s election campaign may have bought the company suspect judicial decisions in its favor, including denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a class-action suit, and foisting a settlement offer upon the plaintiffs with very little notice.

The Caperton decision spoke of how the appearance of impropriety could dangerously erode public confidence in the judicial system. These West Virginia cases, which highlight the problem of judges accepting campaign donations from the lawyers and parties before them, undermine the public’s confidence even further.

Lots of folks in West Virginia are talking about changing the way judges are selected. This is no surprise, after expensive, divisive elections and an electoral history that has brought a tremendously important case about campaign contributions to the United States Supreme Court.  Here’s what they’re talking about.

Lincoln Walks at Midnight reports that Governor Manchin had asked the West Virginia Judicial Association to consider changing to a nonpartisan election system. Although the Executive Committee brought the issue to the membership, the body rejected the proposal.

Then, a House-Senate Committee took testimony over the weekend about how to improve the selection process.  The Charleston Gazette reports that Senator John Yoder urged the adoption of a Merit Selection system:

“Nobody has ever argued that merit selection takes politics out of the selection of judges,” Yoder told an interim committee studying alternatives to partisan election of judges.

“What it does take out is the money – the appearance that justice is for sale,” he said.

Yoder said merit selection removes the perception of judicial bias, based on which lawyers and special interests contribute to their campaigns.

“There’s a perception you can tell the outcome of a case by who the attorneys are that have contributed to the judge,” he said.

The money problem was a shared concern, even of those who urged different reforms.  The point is, the money problem in judicial elections is getting worse.  Merit Selection offers the best solution by taking judges out of the fundraising business.