Judicial disqualification based on campaign financial support

What it would have done

Summary by the Legislative Reference Bureau, the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

This bill requires a supreme court justice and a judge in the court of appeals, in circuit court, and in municipal court (judge) to disqualify himself or herself from a civil or criminal action or proceeding (action) if, as a candidate for judicial office and within the past four years, the judge received campaign financial support of $1,000 or more from a party to the action. The bill specifies that financial support includes campaign contributions, independent contributions made on behalf of the judge, and independent contributions made against the judge's opponent. In the event that a judge must disqualify himself or herself under the condition established in the bill, the judge may disclose the reason for disqualification and ask the parties and the lawyers of the parties to consider whether to waive disqualification. If the party who is opposed to the party who provided campaign financial support to the judge waives disqualification, the judge may participate in the action.

Current law requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself from an action under certain circumstances, including when a judge is related to any party or counsel to the action, when a judge is a party or a material witness in the action, when a judge has a significant financial or personal interest in the outcome of the action, and when a judge determines that he or she cannot, or it appears he or she cannot, act in an impartial manner.

Who's behind it

13 lawmakers are its authors⁠. All 13 are Democrats.