Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judicial‑disqualification bill draws bench caution; sponsor withdraws due‑pass motion
Summary
SB 311 proposed expanding statutory grounds for judges to be disqualified, including ties to former law clerks and recent staff; local judges testified that the draft could be overly restrictive in smaller jurisdictions and that judicial-discipline processes already exist; sponsor withdrew a motion for a do‑pass vote and will revisit the bill.
Senator Clark introduced SB 311 to add explicit grounds for judicial disqualification, listing circumstances such as interest in the outcome, kinship within the third degree, prior counsel involvement, prior presiding in inferior court, and relationships involving current or former judicial staff within the past three years. Clark said the bill aims to clarify statutory standards for recusal and disqualification.
Judges who appeared in the hearing expressed concern that the law‑clerk and three‑year provisions, as drafted, would be overly restrictive—particularly in smaller judicial districts where externs or former clerks may later practice locally. Ernest Brown, a circuit judge, told the committee that the proposed restrictions could limit access to counsel and create unintended hardship in jurisdictions with fewer lawyers. Judge Shannon Blatt likewise recommended relying on judicial discipline processes and urged caution in drafting language that could impede court operations.
Committee members debated separation‑of‑powers questions about the legislature prescribing detailed disqualification rules versus the judiciary's conduct code. After extended discussion, Senator Clark withdrew his motion for a do‑pass recommendation; the bill remains under consideration, with sponsors indicating they will consult judges and revise language before returning the measure to the committee.
