Elected judges recuse themselves by way of the court codes

Judge Ken Williams recused himself under Canon 3(c) - Disciplinary Responsibilities.  It reads as follows:

Canon 3 (C) Disciplinary Responsibilities

(1)  Judges having actual knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code should take appropriate action.  Judges having actual knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question as to the other judge's fitness for office should take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include informing the appropriate authority.

(2)    Judges having actual knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct should take appropriate action.  Judges having actual knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to as to the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer should take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include informing the appropriate authority.

Judge George Wood recused himself under Canon 3(d) - Disqualification.  It read as follows:

Canon 3 (D) Disqualification.

(1)   Judges should disqualify themselves in a proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

a.      The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

b.      The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

c.      The judge knows that, individually or as a fiduciary, the judge or the judge’s spouse or member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or is an officer, director or trustee of a party or has any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding, unless there is a remittal of disqualification;

d.      The judge or the judge’s spouse or member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household, or the spouse of such a person:

                                                               i.      Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

                                                             ii.      Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

                                                            iii.      Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

Comment:

The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a lawyer-relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge.  Under appropriate circumstances, the fact that “their impartiality might reasonably be questioned” under Canon 3(D)(1), or that the lawyer-relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be “substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” may require the judge’s disqualification.

(2)   Judges should inform themselves about their personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform themselves about the personal economic interests of their spouse and minor children residing in their household.

From page 23 of the Code of Judicial Conduct