context: Thirty-seven states have judges elected in some manner. Recusal for involvement in a judge's campaign has rarely been found to be required. In fact, the writer has found no case in which recusal was required solely for campaign activity other than where there was substantial involvement with a campaign then underway.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: Recusal required where lawyers were on an ongoing campaign committee
citation_a.sentence: See, Caleffe v. Vitale, 488 So.2d 627 (Fla.App.1986) (Ongoing campaign, judge disqualified.); Barber v. MacKenzie, 562 So.2d 755 (Fla.App.1990) (Recusal required where lawyers were on an ongoing campaign committee).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.parenthetical: Recusal not required because of financial contribution to judge's campaign.
citation_b.sentence: But see, Rocha v. Ahmad, 662 S.W.2d 77 later proceeding 676 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.App.1983) (Recusal not required for reason that lawyers involved had contributed “many thousands” of dollars to the judges’ campaigns.); Keane v. Andrews, 555 So.2d 940 (Fla.App.1990) (Recusal not required because of financial contribution to judge’s campaign.); Gluth Bros. Constr. Inc. v. Union Nat. Bank, 192 Ill.App.3d 649, 139 Ill.Dec. 650, 548 N.E.2d 1364 appl. den. 131 Ill.2d 559, 142 Ill.Dec. 881, 553 N.E.2d 395 (1989) (Counsel’s service as campaign manager six years before not grounds for recusal of judge.); Ainsworth v. Combined Ins. Co., 105 Nev. 237, 774 P.2d 1003 (1989) (Attorney’s service as co-chairman of campaign in past insufficient grounds for recusal).