Robert Yablon:
The recusal standards go back a long way, and there are some types of recusal that are long established, fairly clear cut. You know, judges need to step aside from a case if they've been personally involved in the case, if they have a relative who has been, if they have a financial interest in the state, in the case. But what we're seeing more of these last few years is requests for justices to step aside because of things they said on the campaign trail and/or because of support — financial support — that they received from the campaign. Now, the recusal rules themselves are actually quite permissive when it comes to both money and campaign statements. The expectation is that, under the current rules, that judges and justices won't step aside because of their discussions of issues or values on the campaign trail or because of money they've received. And as more of that happens, right, as we have record-breaking judicial elections in terms of the money pouring in, as we have justices who are being more candid about their views and values, then more of these request to recuse come. But in reality, most of them get denied, and under the rules as they're currently written, probably ought to be denied because the recusal standards are relatively narrow standards.