By Ed Mendel
November 28, 2016
The state Supreme Court last week agreed to hear an appeal of a groundbreaking ruling that allows cuts in the pensions earned by current state and local government workers, including judges.
When judges have an obvious conflict of interest and excuse themselves from ruling on a case, the legal term is “recuse.”
But the seven Supreme Court justices seem unlikely to recuse themselves from a possible landmark ruling on this Marin County pension case, mainly because there is no clear alternative.
There is at least one well-publicized example of how judges ruling on their own pensions creates the appearance of self-serving, if not what President-elect Trump called a “rigged” system.
As Orange County unsuccessfully tried to overturn a retroactive pension increase for deputy sheriffs, an attorney arguing the case for the deputies in 2011 reminded the judges they were ruling on their own pensions.
“Miriam A. Vogel, a retired Court of Appeal justice, clearly told her former colleagues that the court’s decision would affect every pension in the state of California: ‘(I)t would affect yours, it would affect mine,’” former Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach (now a state senator) wrote in the Orange County Register.
“Then she took a couple of questions and sat down. She gave no legal citations, no elaborate arguments. Nothing,” Moorlach wrote.
The Arizona supreme court had an obvious way to avoid ruling on their own pensions earlier this month. Two appeals court judges sued to overturn reform legislation in 2011 that increased their pension contributions from 7 percent of pay to 13 percent.
Four Supreme Court justices appointed before 2011 recused themselves, leaving the decision to a panel of one Supreme Court justice and four lower-court judges who took office after 2011 and were not affected by the reform.
The panel overturned the reform on a 3-to-2 vote, costing the Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System an estimated $220 million in back payments and adding $1.3 billion to the pension debt or “unfunded liability.”
The majority ruled that the pension promised at hire becomes a contract that can’t be cut, the Associated Press reported. The minority, including Justice Clint Bolick, said freezing contributions could jeopardize the pension plan.
Arizona switched new judges and elected officials to 401(k)-style plans in 2013, limiting pensions from the system to police, firefighters and correctional officers. A pension reform approved by voters earlier this year is projected to save $475 million.
In Rhode Island last year, an embattled judge who refused to recuse herself approved a settlement of union suits against major cost-cutting reforms after accepting a state motion to have a jury hear the cases.
A nationally known lawyer, David Boies, and others urged Superior Court Judge Sarah Taft-Carter to recuse herself because the ruling could affect her pension in addition to the pensions of her son, mother and uncle.
“If my financial interest should require disqualification, then all other state judges would be similarly required to recuse themselves,” Taft-Carter told the New York Times. “Plaintiffs brought this case the way they did to try to avoid federal jurisdiction,” Boies said.
To read expanded article, click here.