BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2487|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2487
Author: Feuer (D)
Amended: 8/2/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/29/10
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Hancock, Leno
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 71-0, 5/6/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Judges: disqualification
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill requires that a judge be disqualified
when he or she has received a contribution of more than
$1,500 from a party or lawyer in a proceeding and either
the contribution was received in support of the judge's
last election, if the last election was within the prior
six years, or the contribution was received in anticipation
of an upcoming election. This bill also requires the judge
to disclose campaign contributions if those amounts are
reportable under the Political Reform Act.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that a judge shall be
disqualified if, among other things, one or more of the
following is true:
1. The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary
CONTINUED
AB 2487
Page
2
facts concerning the proceeding.
2. The judge served as a lawyer in the proceeding or, in
any other proceeding involving the same issues, he or
she served as a lawyer for a party or gave advice to a
party in the proceeding.
3. The judge has a financial interest in the subject matter
in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding,
including if a spouse or minor child living in the
household has a financial interest or the judge or his
or her spouse is a fiduciary who has a financial
interest.
4. For any reason, the judge believes his or her recusal
would further the interests of justice.
5. For any reason, the judge believes there is a
substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be
impartial.
6. For any reason, a person aware of the facts might
reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be
able to be impartial.
7. The judge has a current arrangement regarding
prospective employment or other compensated service as a
dispute resolution neutral or is participating in, or
has participated in within the last two years, such
discussions, as specified. (Code of Civil Procedures
Section 170.1.)
Existing law defines "financial interest" to mean ownership
of more than a one percent legal or equitable interest in a
party, or a legal or equitable interest in a party of a
fair market value in excess of one thousand five hundred
dollars ($1,500), except as specified.
Existing law provides that if a judge disqualifies himself
or herself, the judge must notify the presiding judge of
the court and may not participate further in the
proceeding, unless the parties waive his or her
disqualification. Existing law provides that a judge who
disqualifies himself or herself may ask the parties and
CONTINUED
AB 2487
Page
3
their attorneys, after disclosing the basis for the
disqualification on the record, to waive the
disqualification except if the judge has a personal bias or
prejudice concerning a party or the judge served as an
attorney in the matter, or the judge has been a material
witness concerning that matter. (Code of Civil Procedures
Section 170.3.)
Existing law provides that a judge may not try a civil or
criminal action when it is established that the judge is
prejudiced against a party or attorney or the interest of a
party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding.
Existing law permits a party or attorney to establish this
prejudice, within a specified timeframe, by an oral or
written motion without notice supported by affidavit or
declaration under penalty of perjury or an oral statement
under oath that the judge is prejudiced so that the party
or attorney cannot or believes he or she cannot have a fair
and impartial trial or hearing before the judge. A party
is limited to one such peremptory challenge, except as
specified. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6.)
Existing Canons of Judicial Conduct require that in all
trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the
record information that is reasonably relevant to the
question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure
section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no
actual basis for disqualification. (California Code of
Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2).)
This bill would require that a judge be disqualified when
he or she has received a contribution of more than $1,500
from a party or counsel in the proceeding and either of the
following applies: (1) the contribution was received in
support of the judge's last election, if the last election
was within the prior six years, or (2) the contribution was
received in anticipation of an upcoming election.
This bill provides that a judge shall be disqualified based
on a contribution of a lesser amount if, for any reason,
the judge believes his or her recusal would further the
interests of justice, the judge believes there is a
substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be
impartial, or a person aware of the facts might reasonably
entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be
CONTINUED
AB 2487
Page
4
impartial.
This bill provides that this disqualification may be waived
by the party that did not make the contribution.
This bill requires a judge to disclose campaign
contributions from a party or counsel in a matter that is
before the court if those amounts are reportable under the
Political Reform Act of 1974, even if the amount would not
require disqualification under the bill. This bill
provides that the manner of disclosure shall be the same as
that provided in Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Ethics.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/9/10)
Judicial Council
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office writes, "This
bill seeks to ensure both the actuality and appearance of
judicial impartiality. In recent years, judicial elections
have become increasingly expensive and partisan, often
requiring judges to spend considerable time raising money
in contested elections. The most egregious example of this
can be seen in Caperton v. Massey (2009) in which a judge
refused to disqualify himself even though he had received
$3 [million] in campaign contributions from one of the
parties, the Massey Coal Company. Many commentators,
including former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, believe that the recent US Supreme Court opinion
in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) will increase the amount
of money spent in all elections, including judicial
elections.
"While large campaign contributions in elections of
legislative and executive offices create their own
problems, expenditures in judicial elections are even more
problematic in that they undermine perceptions of judicial
impartiality and erode public trust in the fairness of
judicial decisions. This bill seeks to preserve both the
actuality and, as importantly, the appearance of judicial
CONTINUED
AB 2487
Page
5
impartiality by requiring judges to disqualify themselves
if they have received substantial campaign contributions
from a party or counsel appearing before them, in the same
manner that they must already disqualify themselves when
they have a financial interest in a party or the subject
matter of the case."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Carter, Chesbro,
Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore,
Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes,
Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Hagman, Hall,
Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman,
Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Ma, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, V.
Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva,
Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson,
Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Block, Charles Calderon, Fuller,
Gilmore, Mendoza, Norby, Skinner, Vacancy
RJG:do 8/3/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED