Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Recusal Rule Of Necessity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill narrowing use of "rule of necessity" for judicial recusal
Summary
Senate Bill 30 would prohibit a judicial officer from invoking the common-law "rule of necessity" to avoid recusal when other judges with lesser conflicts are available. Sponsor said the change clarifies long-standing practice; committee members asked whether enforcement would fall to courts or the Judicial Standards Commission.
Senate Bill 30, introduced by Sen. Tom McGillivray, would bar judicial officers from invoking the common-law doctrine known as the “rule of necessity” to avoid recusal when other judges with lesser or no conflicts are available to serve on a case.
McGillivray told the committee the proposal codifies a limitation on the rule of necessity that has roots in common law and is intended to strengthen public confidence in impartial adjudication. He reviewed the historical purpose of recusal—avoiding bias or the appearance of bias—and described the rule of necessity as an exception that should not be used to excuse judges when reasonably available substitutes exist.
Committee members asked how the statute would be enforced. Sen. Newman asked whether enforcement would require litigation; McGillivray said a party would likely bring the issue to court, and that a complaint to the Judicial Standards Commission (JSC) could also be a mechanism. McGillivray referenced case law in closing, noting McLaughlin v. State of Montana as part of the bill’s background in his view.
No proponents or opponents registered in the hearing record; the committee held the exchange mainly as informational and did not take a formal vote during the session.
