11.30.11 Avery v. State Farm: Balancing Judicial Campaign Finance and the Need for Recusal Standards
By: Elizabeth Monkus, Staff Attorney, Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice
Chicago Appleseed and the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform submitted an amicus brief, written by pro bono attorneys at DLA Piper, to the Illinois Supreme Court as it reconsidered Avery v. State Farm. We are excited for this opportunity to address the Illinois Supreme Court on the issue issues of judicial integrity raised in the case. Standards and procedures of judicial recusal, particularly in the context of campaign spending, have a direct impact on public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. The case's underlying lawsuit had nothing whatever to do with elections, judicial independence or campaign financing. The original suit was a class action against State Farm, alleging that State Farm violated its contracts with policy holders when it specified the use of non-original equipment manufacturer parts in the repair of vehicles damaged in crashes. The trial court certified the class and a jury verdict ultimately awarded the class significant damages against State Farm.
According to the American Judicature Society, as the case worked its way through the Illinois appeals process, in 2004 "Illinois saw the most expensive judicial election campaign in history, with the two candidates for a district-based seat on the supreme court raising $9.3 million-more than was raised in 18 of the 34 U.S. Senate races that year." In 2005, when the case first reached the Illinois Supreme Court, the winner of that election, Justice Lloyd Karmeier, sat on the panel which heard the case.
The Supreme Court found in favor of State Farm, when it held that it was an abuse of discretion for the circuit court to certify the class. The court further found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish damages and that jury's award was based on speculation and conjecture, rather than expert testimony. The Supreme Court also found there was no basis for the plaintiffs' claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and that the Circuit Court was correct in denying the original claim for equitable relief.
Plaintiffs lawyers had asked that Justice Karmeier recuse himself from the case because State Farm disclosed it had given $350,000 to the his campaign, but Justice Karmeier declined to do so. The Illinois Supreme Court refused a petition for rehearing based upon the Justice's failure to recuse himself and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. However, Plaintiffs claimed they had new evidence showing that State Farm raised between $2.4 million to $4 million of the Justice's $4.5 million election budget,
With the rehearing of the case, Chicago Appleseed saw a great opportunity to advocate for clearer recusal standards. Chicago Appleseed takes no position on the merits of the underlying class action, but we strongly believe that clear recusal rules are necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. In the amicus brief, which was accepted by the Court, we reiterate the position that Illinois' standards and procedures of recusal should be improved consistent with two principles: reasoned, transparent review of recusal decisions by neutral judges and consideration of recusal on account of judicial campaign spending by litigants or their attorneys. Illinois should adopt the evolving best practices of judicial recusal like other states across the country in order to ensure public confidence in the judiciary.
Whatever the outcome of the rehearing, the judiciary cannot afford to have its impartiality questioned because litigants have donated significant sums to individual judge's campaigns. It is in the Court's best interests, as well as in the interests of society, to provide clear, universal rules for recusal when faced with litigants who have contributed to their campaigns.
The Illinois Supreme Court denied the appeal in Avery v. State Farm, without written opinion, declining to restore the verdict. While Chicago Appleseed did not take a position in the case, we believe that the money race in judicial campaigns will only complicate more cases in the future unless the judiciary establishes firm standards for recusal. If information about campaign contributions to judicial races is not made readily available to all litigants and their attorneys so conflicts can readily be identified, questions about judicial integrity and impartiality will only grow. The judiciary stands to lose the respect of the community it serves unless clear recusal standards with regard to campaign contributions are adopted.