CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- An overwhelming majority of people participating in a Harris Interactive telephone poll last week doubted that elected judges can be impartial in cases that involve major campaign donors.

The national poll results, being released today, found the American public believes judges should step aside from making decisions in those cases.

The Justice at Stake Campaign, a nonprofit coalition describing itself as "a nonpartisan national campaign working to keep our courts fair and impartial," funded the survey.

On March 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about this issue in an appeal that Hugh Caperton and Harman Mining filed against A.T. Massey Coal Co., now called Massey Energy.

The West Virginia Supreme Court voted twice - by 3-2 margins in November 2007 and again in April 2008 - to overturn a Boone County jury verdict that awarded Caperton $50 million in August 2002, after Massey took over for itself a long-term coal supply contract Harman signed with a Pittsburgh steel producer. With interest, the verdict is now worth $82 million.

Justice Brent Benjamin, now chief justice, voted in favor of Massey in both cases.

Benjamin refused to recuse himself even though Donald L. Blankenship, Massey's CEO, spent more than $3 million of his own money to pay for media ads and mailings during Benjamin's election campaign for the court. Benjamin, a Republican, defeated incumbent Justice Warren McGraw, a Democrat.

The Harris Interactive poll found:

Charles W. Hall, Justice at Stake's communications director, said more than 80 percent of those polled believed a judge should step aside from cases involving any party who spent between $50,000 and $1 million on his campaign.

The Justice at Stake coalition includes the American Bar Association, American Association for Justice, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school, Common Cause, Interfaith Alliance and several state chapters of the League of Women Voters.

On its Web site, Justice at Stake asks, "Can two sides in a lawsuit receive equal justice - when one side has spent $3 million to elect the judge deciding the case?

"That question is at the heart of Caperton v. Massey.... Special-interest spending on judicial elections has soared since the 1990s, leading some to say justice is now 'for sale.'

"As in most states, Benjamin had the final word on whether he should leave the case, and he refused to do so," the group states.

A separate USA Today poll recently found that about 90 percent of respondents believed judges should not hear cases involving campaign contributors.

Harris Interactive conducted this telephone poll between Feb. 12 and Feb. 15. It included 1,006 adults, 18 years or older.

Justice at State (whose Web site is www.justiceatstake.org) stated, "An unprecedented coalition has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that in certain cases, judges have a constitutional obligation not to rule on matters involving major campaign supporters."

Those supporters include former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who has represented former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush personally, as well as a group of businesses - including Wal-Mart, Pepsico, Intel and Lockheed Martin - that filed a brief on behalf of Caperton.

Olson, who will argue the case for Caperton next week, has said, "The improper appearance created by money in judicial elections is one of the most important issues facing our judicial system today. A line needs to be drawn somewhere to prevent a judge from hearing cases involving a person who has made massive campaign contributions."

Reach Paul J. Nyden at pjny...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-5164.