Senator Bernie Sanders recently stated that he’d consider making a “list” of potential Supreme Court nominees, which would imitate a move that then-candidate Donald Trump made during the 2016 presidential campaign. (Mr. Trump was specifically eyeing prospective nominees to fill the vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia; Mr. Sanders, presumably, would use the list for any future vacancy.)

Of course, listing names of sitting judges as potentially reaping the benefit of a Supreme Court nomination has consequences.

Justice David Stras of the Minnesota Supreme Court was on Mr. Trump’s list, and he recused himself when a ballot access issue concerning Mr. Trump arose in state court. (Justice Stras was later appointed to the Eighth Circuit.)

Likewise, when a recount issue arose in Michigan after the election, Chief Justice Robert Young (named to a second list of Mr. Trump’s potential nominees) and Justice Joan Larsen (later appointed to the Sixth Circuit) recused themselves—Chief Justice Young with a saltier recusal than Justice Larsen.

For more, see Professor Josh Blackman’s take back in 2016.

The recusals likely didn’t affect the outcome of either strand of election-related litigation (more on that in a moment). But it’s worth considering a couple of things.

First, to what extent should being named as a prospective Supreme Court nominee of a presidential candidate disqualify a sitting judge from hearing cases relating to the election of that candidate? The three recusals mentioned above occurred perhaps out of an abundance of caution than required by judicial ethics—perhaps.

Second, might naming sitting judges ultimately affect the course of litigation in the future in the event of recusals? We saw two cases where it didn’t ultimately affect the litigation—at least, we don’t think so. In Minnesota, the decision was unanimous. In Michigan, however, it was a divided decision in favor of the position advocated by Mr. Trump’s campaign—and one, conventional wisdom suggests, the recused justices would have been inclined to support. And it was a fairly low stakes decision involving a recount by Green Party candidate Jill Stein in a state with little likelihood of any recount changing the outcome.

But if high-profile sitting judges favored by Mr. Sanders (or other Democratic candidates) are named, and they are compelled to recuse in potentially higher-stakes election litigation, it might actually be a real problem in the 2020 election. All something to watch in the event any lists are released.

UPDATE: Helpful feedback also suggested I should distinguish between the situation in 2016 where there was an existing Supreme Court vacancy, and the situation in 2020 where there is only a potential Supreme Court vacancy. That might also affect whether judges feel obliged to recuse.