Wisconsin Supreme Court rules Butler had no duty to recuse self from case.

• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

Groundless demands that state Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from cases may be the latest and hottest form of attack on judicial independence.

But if a July 30 opinion from the Wisconsin Supreme Court -- denying a motion to vacate a decision relating to the disqualification of a justice -- is any indication, those attacks aren't going to fare very well.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the court held that Justice Louis B. Butler, Jr., had no duty to recuse himself from a case involving a group that supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights.

Attorney James R. Donohoo filed a motion seeking vacation of a recent opinion, based on Butler's receiving campaign contributions from the opposing attorney in the case, and Butler's appearance at a fundraiser for an LGBT PAC. Other contributors to his campaign also had affiliations with LGBT organizations.

Burdensome Review

But the court denied the motion, concluding, The code of judicial conduct does not require judicial candidates to attempt to research every possible organization with which contributors may have an affiliation. Such a requirement would be unduly burdensome to candidates for judicial office and we decline to impose it.

Justice David T. Prosser wrote an even more vehement concurrence, blasting the motion.

Attorney Donohoo is not oblivious to contemporary legal developments, Prosser wrote.

In recent years, justices of this court have been subjected to repeated demands that they recuse themselves from participation in pending cases. Often those demands are amplified by sensation-seeking reporters who appear to believe that freedom of the press entails a right to tamper with the administration of justice. Sometimes these well-publicized demands have caused a justice to withdraw from a case because the justice is not in a position to answer false allegations without appearing to comment on pending litigation.

The opinion brings to a conclusion a case with a long and tortured history.

It began when Grant E. Storms, a minister, filed a libel suit against Action Wisconsin and Christopher Ott, its executive director, after the group issued a release contending that Storm advocated the murder of homosexuals.

The defendants won at the trial level, and the court found the suit frivolous, awarding attorney fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the finding of frivolousness.

However, in a June 5 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of...