In a state with elected judges, a certain candidate (the challenger) for the state supreme court sought to unseat an incumbent justice. The president of a coal company in that state set up a nonprofit organization to advocate for the removal of the incumbent justice, and contributed millions of dollars to this entity, which ran an extensive advertising campaign criticizing the incumbent justice. Even though the president did not give this money directly to the challenger, the campaign was effective, and the challenger won the election and became a state supreme court justice. The millions contributed to the nonprofit by the coal company president exceeded the total amount of all other campaign contributions in that election. Shortly thereafter, a lawsuit involving the coal company, which had been working its way through the courts, came up for review by that state supreme court. The justice who had won the election joined a 3-2 majority ruling in favor of the coal company in a case worth more than $50 million. The other party had petitioned for recusal by the newly seated justice, given that the coal company's executive had contributed millions of dollars to help the justice win the election, but the justice did not recuse himself, explaining in a lengthy memorandum why he thought he could render an unbiased decision in the case. Was it proper for the new justice to participate in the decision in this case?