Judge: Recusal Not Needed on Judicial Job Cuts Since Private Practice Pays More
A panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that recusal is not required in a challenge to a ballot measure that would cut judges’ pay and eliminate some of their jobs.
The court said the “rule of necessity” allows judges to rule, even if their own jobs are threatened under the proposed constitutional amendment, the Detroit Free Press reports.
One panel member whose job would be eliminated under the measure said the economic impact is minimal because he is close to retirement and he could earn more in private practice. Losing his judicial salary of $151,441 “would have almost no economic impact on me,” wrote Judge William Whitbeck.
The proposed measure trims not only the size of the intermediate appeals court but also the state supreme court, which would lose two justices. The amendment would also cut judicial salaries by 15 percent.
