Comments are broken over at Y'all Politics as they begin using Facebook as their login, but I wanted to thank them for the twitter plug. (It may be a problem on my end, Alan says it should work.) In a recent post, their "award winning Memory Division" has recalled what they seem to believe will be grounds for recusal of Judge Carlton Reeves. Seems they think that since Reeves represented individuals in the 2002 congressional redistricting case, Mauldin v. Branch, that he will now be unable to sit as judge in NAACP v. Barbour, et al. They also complain that he was co-counsel with Rob McDuff, who now represents potential intervenor House Apportionment Committee in NAACP v. Barbour, et al.
Two things: The parties aren't the same in Barbour as they were in Mauldin. So, no, Judge Reeves didn't formerly represent a party at bar in Barbour. Also, a judge's former co-counsel in a case 9 years ago appearing in a current case is not grounds for recusal. (I'm not even certain that they were actually "co-counsel" in the case, or whether they just represented parties on the same side of the "v.")
But there is something interesting about what Y'all Politics posted. Dickie Scruggs' name appears as an attorney for the appellants.