KVOA News 4, Tucson, Arizona - Justice in veto case represented Napolitano in similar dispute<<Back


                        Justice in veto case represented Napolitano in similar 
                        dispute

                        June 18, 2006, 05:45 AM MST 
                        One of the five Arizona Supreme Court justices who will 
                        decide Republican legislators' constitutional challenge 
                        of a line-item veto by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano 
                        argued on her behalf as a private attorney in a similar 
                        case three years ago. 
                        A Republican legislative leader who pushed for the 
                        current line-item veto court challenge said Justice 
                        Scott Bales' involvement is troubling because of his 
                        past representation of Napolitano. 
                        "His long-term relationship with the governor and his 
                        direct representation of the governor -- and not only 
                        his direct representation of the governor but his direct 
                        representation of the governor on this same issue -- 
                        lends itself to some questions concerning his ability to 
                        be impartial on this issue although I have every 
                        confidence he will certainly do his best and he will 
                        attempt to be impartial," said House Majority Leader 
                        Steve Tully, an attorney. 
                        Napolitano appointed Bales to the state's high court in 
                        2005, two years after he represented her in a 2003 case 
                        in which GOP legislative leaders also challenged her 
                        line-item vetoes. Bales previously worked under 
                        Napolitano as a federal prosecutor while she was U.S. 
                        attorney for Arizona and as state solicitor general when 
                        she was state attorney general. 
                        Judges are generally told to avoid disqualifying 
                        themselves from cases if possible, but the state's 
                        judicial conduct rules state that judges must disqualify 
                        themselves in a proceeding in which "the judge's 
                        impartiality might reasonably be questioned," including 
                        instances in which a judge "served as a lawyer in the 
                        matter in controversy" within the past seven years. 
                        In the 2003 case, Bales signed a brief arguing that 
                        line-item vetoes Napolitano cast that year were within 
                        her constitutional power and that the court shouldn't 
                        "referee in the state's budget process." Similar 
                        arguments were presented on Napolitano's behalf in the 
                        current case. 
                        Bales had his office referred a request for comment to 
                        Supreme Court spokeswoman Cari Gerchick. She said Bales 
                        wouldn't discuss the matter because it involved a 
                        pending case but that he would be impartial. 
                        There's a difference between an attorney arguing a 
                        client's position and being a judge impartially 
                        considering an issue, Gerchick said. 
                        "The bottom line is that no justice will sit on a case 
                        unless he is impartial," she said. "The fact that he's 
                        sitting on the case means he's impartial." 
                        Gerchick said she didn't know whether there'd been any 
                        discussion within the court regarding Bales' involvement 
                        but that Chief Justice Ruth McGregor takes the position 
                        that no justice would sit on a case unless he or she 
                        were impartial. 
                        Keith Stott, executive director of the state Judicial 
                        Conduct Commission, declined to comment. 
                        Napolitano said she was confident that Bales would be 
                        impartial. 
                        Tully said he still questions what he calls an apparent 
                        conflict. 
                        "I'm sure that he's an honorable man, and I have reason 
                        to believe he's honorable and ... will discharge his 
                        duties as required by law," Tully said. "But there is an 
                        obvious appearance of conflict of interest there." 
                        Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. 
                        This material may not be published, broadcast, 
                        rewritten, or redistributed. 






                        All content © Copyright 2003 - 2006 WorldNow and KVOA. 
                        All Rights Reserved.
                        For more information on this site, please read our 
                        Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.