Litigation

Editorial: ?Make Judges? Disclosures Easier to Get?

By Peter Hardin

A Nevada newspaper is displeased that  federal judges’ asset disclosure statements are “hard to get” and the public may face a long waiting period to see them, as an Associated Press dispatch reported earlier this week (see Gavel Grab).

In an editorial entitled “Waiting period,” the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted that it can two weeks for a citizen to obtain a judge’s disclosure statement, and the judge will be notified and have a chance to partially censor it first.

In the case of a federal judge in Louisiana, asked to rule on blocking the Obama administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium, the judge held shares of Exxon Mobil and the public didn’t know it at the time. The editorial takes a dim view of the way the disclosure reports are handled now:

“These delays are excessive. Once the documents necessary to reveal potential conflicts of interest are compiled, they should be readily available to any member of the public — without fear that the judge will be provided with the names of parties uppity enough to inquire.

“The timeliness of information enhances its value. If un-elected administrators can impose an arbitrary 10-day waiting period, what’s to stop them from deciding 30 days or three years might be even better?”

Under the American Bar Association Model Code, judges are instructed to step aside not just when they are actually biased, but whenever ?the judge?s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.? Some form of this rule exists in nearly every state. You can learn more about the importance of strong recusal rules, governing times when a judge should step aside from hearing a case, from the Justice at Stake issues page on the topic.

Full post as published by The Gavel on September 23, 2010 (boomark / email).