Having destroyed the first two arguments Republicans in the state Legislature made in their demand that Justice Janet Protasiewiz recuse herself from hearing cases on redistricting issues, the good justice proceeded to take just a moment to blow up the third.
Protasiewicz
This is the third installment of excerpts from Protasiewic's order refusing to step away.
Part 1 of the excerpts is here. Part 2 is here. If you want to read the entire order, it is posted here. There is much more detail in the analysis section than in the summary section of the order from which these excerpts are taken.
In this episode, Protasiewicz considers the Legislature's recusal demands are based on a state law that requires judges to recuse when they have a significant financial or personal interest in the outcome of a case. Just being a member of a political party or a taxing body that is a party to the case isn't enough, however, to have the law apply.
The Legislature also cited another part of the law, this one requiring recusal when a judge "determines that, for any reason, he or she cannot, or it appears he or she cannot, act in an impartial manner."
Protasiewicz disposed of the latter issue quickly. The law, she wrote in her order, "simply requires me to make the subjective determination that I can decide this case impartially both in fact and appearance. I have determined that I can do both."
On to the "significant financial or personal interest" issue.
"The Legislature claims that I have a personal interest in keeping my word by invalidating
Wisconsin's legislative maps. That argument fails because I made no promise or commitment to voters about how I would decide any case. I simply expressed my personal opinions as permitted by Republican Party. When I put on my robe, I put my personal opinions aside." (Emphasis in original).
"Consistent with the oath I swore, my highest obligation is to 'faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of [my] office,' " she concluded. "Those duties include participating in a case when the law does not require me to recuse. Here, under that legal standard, I must respectfully deny this motion."
Comments