League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth
179 A.3d 1080 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party seeking judicial recusal must raise the objection at the earliest possible moment, or it will be deemed waived; judicial candidates' expressions of views on general legal issues during campaigns do not necessarily require recusal unless they constitute a clear commitment to rule a particular way in a specific case.
Facts:
- David Wecht campaigned for a seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2015.
- During his campaign, Justice Wecht made numerous public statements expressing strong views against partisan gerrymandering, describing it as an 'absolute abomination,' 'travesty,' 'insane,' and 'deeply wrong,' and noted the disproportionate 13-to-5 Republican split in Pennsylvania's House delegation.
- Justice Wecht also included qualifications in some of his campaign statements, emphasizing fidelity to the Constitution, stating he would judge any hypothetical case on its merits, and that he could not say how he would rule on any given map.
- Legislative Respondents (Applicants) averred that they learned the facts forming the basis of their recusal application only after oral argument in the underlying case on January 17, 2018, citing Justice Wecht's 'adversarial tone' at that session.
- Applicants' counsel's 'Senior Litigation Support Coordinator' attested that he discovered the specific statements through Internet searches conducted on January 31, 2018, and February 2, 2018.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had issued a dispositive order ruling against the Legislative Respondents on January 22, 2018, and a corresponding order on January 26, 2018.
Procedural Posture:
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court assumed extraordinary jurisdiction over the underlying challenge to Pennsylvania's congressional districting plan on November 9, 2017.
- The Commonwealth Court conducted a trial on the districting plan, concluding mere weeks after the Supreme Court's order.
- The Commonwealth Court issued detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law approximately two weeks after the trial's completion.
- Parties submitted briefs on appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by January 10, 2018.
- Oral arguments were presented to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on January 17, 2018.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a dispositive order ruling against the Legislative Respondents (Applicants) on January 22, 2018.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a corresponding order on January 26, 2018.
- Legislative Respondents ('Applicants') filed an Application seeking Justice David Wecht's recusal on February 2, 2018, which Intervenor Republican voters joined.
- Petitioners and Executive Respondents ('Opponents') filed three separate answers to the Application on February 5, 2018.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice's previously expressed strong views on partisan gerrymandering during a judicial campaign necessitate recusal, especially when the recusal motion is filed by parties after they have received an adverse ruling in the underlying case?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Wecht
No, Justice Wecht's previously expressed views on partisan gerrymandering during his judicial campaign do not necessitate his recusal, particularly because the application for recusal was untimely filed after an adverse ruling. The court reaffirmed the well-settled standard that a party seeking recusal must raise the objection at the earliest possible moment when they know or should have known the facts, or the right is waived. The Applicants filed their motion after receiving adverse orders from the court, and their own affidavit showed they did not even begin investigating the alleged grounds for recusal until two weeks after the oral argument they cited as the impetus and nine days after the first adverse ruling. Justice Wecht explained that his campaign statements, though ardent, did not constitute a clear commitment to rule in a particular way on a specific case, and he often qualified them by noting he would decide cases based on their merits and the law. Referencing Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, the court emphasized that judicial candidates' First Amendment rights allow them to express views on legal issues, and impartiality does not require a judge to have a complete 'tabula rasa' on legal points. Due process does not mandate recusal in this situation, as Justice Wecht had no personal or pecuniary interest in the litigation. Finally, while public confidence is crucial, reversing a prominent case based on a late recusal request could also undermine public trust in the judiciary's orderly administration of justice.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the procedural requirement for timely recusal motions, particularly disfavoring 'judge-shopping' tactics where parties withhold objections until after an unfavorable ruling. It also clarifies the balance between judicial candidates' First Amendment rights to express views on legal issues and the need for perceived impartiality, suggesting that general policy opinions, especially when qualified, are usually insufficient grounds for recusal. The ruling implies that in systems with elected judges, a certain level of public discourse on legal topics is expected and does not inherently create bias, as long as open-mindedness to specific case facts and arguments is maintained.
