Thanks for the link to the actual court papers.

MCR 2.003 of the Michigan Court Rules require that a motion to disqualify be filed within 14 days after the moving party discovers the ground for disqualification. Untimeliness is a factor in deciding whether a motion should be granted.

I speculate that the plaintiffs in opposing this motion may cite the fact that they had notice of Connors’ questionable statements long ago and did nothing. On the other hand, you are correct in that there is a body of legal authority that indicates that the “cumulative effect” of multiple acts can form the threshold basis for asserting disqualifying bias. Also cited is the “appearance of impropriety” test set forth in the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct. The sheer fact of receipt of $8,000.00 in campaign donations by members of the prisoner-plaintiffs legal team, the Wayne County Prosecutor contends, creates an appearance of impropriety even absent a showing of actual bias.

I would say it is extremely unusual for a judge in a local race in Michigan to receive any $3,400.00 donations from other attorneys, let alone many of them in an election cycle.In contrast in the Dearborn District Court race, the incumbent and challenger in the general election have raised about $140,000 between them and few if any were greater than $1,000.00. Mike Woodyard’s top donor gave only $1,000.00.

It will be interesting to see how Connors rules on the motion.

The Wayne County prosecutor filed a motion late Friday asking for Connors’ recusal from that case. [.pdf of entire filing] The motion relates in part to Connors’ attitude towards “the government” as expressed during the case.

In broad summary, the Wayne County prosecutor’s office – which is where Connors’ opponent in the race Mike Woodyard works as an assistant prosecutor – is acting as an intervener in the case. The Wayne County prosecutor is pursuing possible victim restitution owed by women prisoners to victims of their own crimes from their settlement obtained from the Department of Corrections for crimes committed against the prisoners.

One focus in the motion are issues related to campaign contributions made to Connors campaign by plaintiff’s counsel in the case.

But included in the motion is essentially the contention that Connors has expressed bias against the government in this case. I bring this up because it relates indirectly to Cahill’s comment, which analyzes Connors’ willingness to rule against the government as a positive – but presumably without bias against the government.

From the motion filed on Friday:

7. This disdain was vocalized by the trial court on June 10, 2011, when the Court, in an open hearing referred to the Intervenors as being from the same government

The missing punctuation suggests it could be an unfinished thought. The sentence seemed to be headed towards something like “… the same government that committed crimes against the women prisoners.”

That would be consistent with the transcript from the June 10, 2011 hearing, which has Connors saying:

The record had established that the class action involved individuals who were victims of sexual abuse by the government. Three of the — all of the interveners are a portion of the government who committed, on behalf of the government, part of that same entity. So when we start balancing those who were victims, it seems to me that the people who have been sexually abused at the hands of the — under the authority of the government, certainly that seems to me to be something I ought to balance as against someone that says we don’t really understand our computer information and we’re upset about how this resolution of 13 years of litigation occurred, and we want to come in after the fact and ask you to modify it.

I certainly understand that if the campaign contributions are perceived as problematic, then they could only be known with the filing of the campaign finance statements. And when the Wayne County prosecutor’s office then acted on whatever duty it had regarding that perception of impropriety I can conceive of an argument that the “natural” result of the timing turned out to be just before the election.

But what’s not clear to me is why the contention that Connors made biased remarks over a year ago, at the June 10, 2011 hearing, did not come until now. Reading the transcript, I don’t think it’s insane to contend that they reveal a bias by Connors against the intervenors, essentially lumping them together with the Department of Corrections as “the government” that perpetrated crimes against the women prisoners. But if someone is convinced that the remarks reveal bias, is there not a duty to convey that concern to the court in a shorter timeframe than 16 months? Or is this fairly analyzed as a case where it’s not any one of the points by itself that is sufficiently problematic, but rather the cumulative effect of all of them that finally resulted in action?

Perhaps some of the attorneys who’ve weighed in on this thread previously can shed some light on various duties to act and the timing of that action.

Dave Askins, you’re right on the Connors “campaign committee”. I haven’t been to Connors’ website in months. Nor have I been to any campaign meetings or strategy sessions.

I am a Democrat who periodically is accused of not being a real Dem. I voted for Marcia Higgins when she was still a Republican. I endorse Republican John Floyd any time he runs for any office. I endorsed former Republican Jane Lumm last year when she ran as an Independent. Am I a Democrat in your scheme of judging past behavior?

I take Judge Connors at face value and accept that he considers himself a Democrat. Is he the right Dem for you? I’ll leave that up to you. That was the basis for my resolution calling for no endorsement.

I believe the best way to grow the Democratic Party is to attract those who have voted otherwise in the past. I refuse to engage in name calling to malign Dems with whom I disagree or those whose past is sullied with (R)s.

Is Timothy Connors a Democrat?

He was appointed to the bench initially in August of 1991 around the time he was donating $1,000 to the Michigan Republican Party on the sixth the same month, per Federal Election Commission records.

He also made substantial donations to the Clifford Taylor and Engler campaign committees – both conservative GOP heavy hitters.

Mr. Jerald Saffold has made some good points, above and I safely assume could be labeled the type of grassroots supporter that Mike Woodyard could draw upon for support from a “moral reserve” of disgruntled Washtenaw County residents.

I’m glad Mark is using his real name here.

The resolution to remain neutral is in stark contrast to the Party’s overwhelming endorsement of Democrat Carol Kuhnke over Republican Fink in the other circuit court race. While Carol shares the values of the Democratic Party and deserves the support of all Democrats, the choice between two the Democrats Connors and Woodyard does not have that clear distinction.

I would also note that the first person to speak in opposition to my motion was Mr. Woodyard’s campaign manager (who later changed her position). Mr Cahill also spoke against the resolution, apparently in hopes of acquiring an endorsement for Connors. In the end, the party took a position of neutrality by passing my resolution.

“….Judge Connors has a tremendous amount of local support.”

Were you at the September 15, 2012 Ann Arbor Democratic Party membership meeting where Judge Connors’ bid for an endorsement by that group was rejected by a 47-8 vote? Your friend David Cahill was there.

I see more “grassroots support” for Mike Woodyard.

Connors, per his statutory disclosures, has a tremendous amount of campaign financial assistance from the personal injury bar, many who have donated the statutory maximum of $3,400.00. I have never seen so many $3,400.00 maximum individual contributions accepted by a local judicial candidate in any Michigan race.

You speak of the plethora of Michigan Court of Appeals reversals of Connors listed on the Woodyard website – but you fail to comment on the Judicial Tenure Commission citation of Timothy Connors that Mike Woodyard alludes to therein.

Mike Woodyard is the better choice.