Does a judge’s earlier campaign contribution to another judge disqualify the donor from a reassigned case?

Plain-English summary

A judge had contributed to another judge’s campaign about eight years earlier. The recipient judge later reassigned a capital case’s Rule 32 petition to the donor after being ordered to recuse for unrelated reasons.

The Commission concluded that the prior contribution did not make the donor beholden to the recipient, just as contributions do not by themselves make a recipient beholden to contributors. The elapsed eight years strengthened that conclusion. It found no disqualification on the facts presented.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, after the Alabama Supreme Court's 1975 adoption of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Subsequent amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Canons and linked opinion before relying on its conclusions.

Common questions

Q: Did the direction of the reassignment change the result?

A: No. The Commission says whether the donor or recipient made the reassignment did not change the contribution analysis.

Background and rules framework

The letter does not cite a numbered Alabama Canon. It compares the effect of a contribution on the donating and recipient judges.

Citations and references

The letter cites no numbered Canon, statute, case, or other opinion.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 22-951: Campaign Support

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 97-645
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

97-645
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
May 9, 1997
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an advisory opinion as to whether a judge (the “donating judge”), who made a campaign contribution to a fellow judge (the “recipient judge”) some eight years before, is disqualified or should recuse himself from hearing a Rule 32 petition in a capital case tried before the judge to whom the contribution was made. In this case, the recipient judge has reassigned the Rule 32 action to the donating judge after having been ordered to recuse himself for unrelated reasons. It is the opinion of the Commission that disqualification is not required under the facts stated. The Commission has concluded in the past the mere receipt of campaign contributions from an attorney or firm involved in a case does not cause disqualification. Thus, if the case has been reassigned to the recipient judge by the donating judge, there would not be a problem. Changing the direction of reassignment should not change the result. The donating judge has not become beholden to the recipient judge as a result of the contribution any more than the recipient judge becomes beholden due to his or her contributors. This is even more the case when the contribution was made sometime before, i.e., eight years in this case. Thus, on the facts presented, it is the Commission’s opinion that the judge is not disqualified. Yours very truly, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION