BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2487
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2487 (Feuer)
As Amended August 2, 2010
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |71-0 |(May 6, 2010) |SENATE: |34-0 |(August 9, |
| | | | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Requires the disqualification of a superior court
judge who has received a campaign contribution in excess of
$1,500 from a party or lawyer in a proceeding before the court
and requires the disclosure of lesser amounts, as specified.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that a judge shall be disqualified if he or she has
received a contribution in excess of $1,500 from any party or
lawyer in a proceeding that is before the court, and either of
the following apply:
a) The contribution was received in support of the judge's
last election, if the last election was within the last six
years; or,
b) The contribution was received in anticipation of an
upcoming election.
1)Provides that a judge shall be disqualified when receiving
campaign contributions of lesser amounts if the judge believes
the contribution would compromise his or her impartiality or
if a person aware of the contribution might reasonably
entertain a doubt that the judge could be impartial.
2)Requires a judge to disclose, as specified, a campaign
contribution from a party or lawyer in a proceeding before the
court, even if the amount is not sufficient to require
disqualification.
3)Provides that the disqualification required under this bill
may be waived by the non-contributing party, as specified.
The Senate amendments :
AB 2487
Page 2
1)Change the word "counsel" to "lawyer" in appropriate places in
order to achieve consistency with usage in other parts of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
2)Change the word "matter" before the court to "procedure"
before the court in appropriate places in order to achieve
consistency with usage in other parts of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
3)Clarify the permissive waiver of disqualification provisions
in this bill only apply so long as there are no other
circumstances that would prohibit disqualification as provided
by law.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version approved by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to require superior court judges in
California to take two important cautionary steps to maximize
the actual and perceived fairness of our courts: 1) disclose to
the parties appearing before the court whether any opposing
party or counsel has made a campaign contribution to the judge;
and, 2) if the contribution is in excess of $1500, to disqualify
themselves from hearing the matter. The disqualification and
disclosure requirements would apply for the six-year term for
which the contribution was made. The disqualification provision
could be waived by the party that did not make the contribution.
The author believes, as does the Judicial Council's Commission
for Impartial Courts (CIC), that such precautions will
strengthen our judiciary by helping to ensure that judicial
decisions are not influenced by campaign contributions in any
way- and just as importantly for the sake of the legitimacy of
judicial system, that campaign contributions do not create even
the slightest appearance of potential judicial bias.
Although discussions about campaign finance reform usually focus
on officials elected to one of the political branches of
government, a number of recent developments have exposed growing
concerns about the potentially corrupting effect of campaign
contributions in judicial elections. A most egregious example
of this kind of corruption was seen in the stunning facts that
gave rise to the United States Supreme Court recent opinion in
AB 2487
Page 3
Caperton v. Massey (2009) 129 S. Ct. 2252. In Caperton, a West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals justice, Brent Benjamin,
remarkably refused to recuse himself from a case even though he
had received a whopping $3 million in campaign contributions
from just one of the parties, the Massey Coal Company. Both the
amount and the circumstances of the contribution naturally
raised serious suspicions. In the trial court action brought
against Massey for fraudulent business practices, a jury awarded
the plaintiff $50 million. After the verdict, but before the
appeal of the judgment reached the high court, a Massey
executive donated $3 million to Justice Benjamin's campaign for
a seat on the high court. Benjamin was elected and took his
seat in time to hear Massey's appeal. The opposing party,
Caperton, moved for recusal because of the $3 million
contribution, but West Virginia state law ultimately leaves
recusal to the discretion of the individual justice. Benjamin
refused to recuse himself, and then voted with the majority in a
3-2 decision overturning the judgment against Massey. Caperton
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in a 5-4 vote, ruled
that a judge who failed to recuse himself under such
circumstances violated the due process rights of the
non-contributing party
For the most part, California has thus far been spared the
highly partisan and expensive judicial election campaigns
that have unfolded in other states, such as Texas, Illinois,
and, of course, West Virginia. Nonetheless, in response to
growing concerns about increasingly partisan and expensive
judicial elections, California Chief Justice Ronald George
and the Judicial Council established the Commission for
Impartial Courts (CIC) in 2007. The CIC was asked to devise
proposals to ensure judicial quality, impartiality, and
accountability. The CIC developed draft recommendations and
invited public comment. The result of this process was a
December 2009 report that made 71 recommendations relating to
judicial candidate campaign conduct, judicial campaign
finance, judicial selection and retention procedures, and
public information and education. These provisions of this
bill generally track the CIC's recommendation for mandatory
disclosure and disqualification by amending the existing
conflict-of-interest provisions in the Code of Civil
Procedure.
This bill, the author contends, is supported by California's
compelling interest in maintaining judicial impartiality and the
AB 2487
Page 4
appearance of judicial impartiality. It does not, the author
contends, raise any First Amendment issues because it does not
restrict the amount of money that a person may contribute to a
judicial campaign, nor does it restrict the amount that a judge
may accept. Rather, as the author contends, it is narrowly and
prudently tailored to serve the reasonable goal of ensuring that
campaign contributions to superior court judges do not influence
judicial decision making or create the appearance of influencing
judicial decision making.
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark and Drew Liebert / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334
FN: 0005489