Chafin said the Legislature should look at how well the court's appeals system is working.
She also said some of her proposals would help change perceptions about the court.
Chafin has introduced two changes she would like to see made to the court. One is meant to create a "balanced court," and the other is designed to increase transparency. The proposals have become the center of focus in the race because court candidates are generally restricted from talking about issues.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Menis Ketchum dismissed one of Chafin's proposals as "silly" this spring. But whatever their merits, they remain a topic of conversation.
Both proposals are rooted in ethical questions that plagued the Supreme Court several years ago.
Massey Energy Co. CEO Don Blankenship had raised money for a campaign targeting then-candidate Brent Benjamin's political opponent, Justice Warren McGraw. After Benjamin defeated McGraw, Benjamin refused to remove himself from a big case involving Massey.
The U.S. Supreme Court eventually made the state Supreme Court reconsider the case without Benjamin.
One of Chafin's plans, much discussed during the Democratic primary, would change what happens if justices have or may have conflicts of interest.
Currently, justices are supposed to remove themselves from cases if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. If a justice refuses to sit out a case, only the U.S. Supreme Court can step in to take them off the case, an extraordinary occurrence.
Under Chafin's plan, if a justice with a perceived conflict of interest refused to sit out a case, the four other justices and a specially appointed judge could remove them.
During the same period in court history, former Justice Spike Maynard exchanged emails with Blankenship. The Associated Press sought access to those exchanges, and the court fought their release. Eventually, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Davis, said none of the 13 emails at issue should be made public, though a lower court already had ordered five of them to be released.
"I can't think of a worse climate for businesses to come to the state of West Virginia if they believe that there can be private correspondence between judges and litigants with cases pending before them," Chafin said.
Yoder said he thinks the current law requires disclosure of exchanges between judges and lawyers with pending cases.
Loughry likewise said improper contact between judges and lawyers is prohibited.
"It's almost as if the Legislature passes a law that says, 'You have to stop at stoplights,' and then they pass another law that says, 'Now, remember, you really do have to stop at stoplights,' " he said.
Loughry then mentioned Chafin and her husband, the senator.
"What we do with all of our decisions is we review laws passed or amended by the Legislature," Loughry said.
"So, if Tish were fortunate enough to win a seat on the court, virtually every single issue that came before the court in one way or another would raise some sort of a recusal issue for the next 12 years."
Chafin said she strongly disagreed with Loughry and Yoder's criticisms.
First, she said, the current law on disclosing communications isn't clear. That's why the Supreme Court spent more than $50,000 trying to prevent the release of Maynard's emails, she said.
Chafin said she would have to recuse herself from a case involving a bill her husband "championed." But she said she would not have to step away from a matter just because he happened to be a member of the Senate.
"My husband is one of 134 legislators, and it wouldn't be any conflict for me to review law on the Supreme Court and, if it were, I would subject myself to the recusal rules which I advocate here in my Balanced Court Initiative," she said.
Davis, the current court's most senior justice, said the state court follows the same process as the U.S. Supreme Court, all federal courts and most state courts.
"We're now, again, taking a look three years behind," Davis said, referring to the Benjamin case. "We haven't had a problem with recusal since the one case."