Methods of Removing State Judges

Impeachment

Nearly all fifty states have constitutional provisions for removal of state judges by impeachment.  In most states, the impeachment procedure begins with the House of Representatives voting on whether a judge should be impeached.  If the impeachment measure passes in the House, it then goes to the state Senate for a trial and the Senate will vote on whether to convict.  Grounds for impeachment often include terms such as “malfeasance,” “misfeasance,” “gross misconduct,” “gross immorality,” “high crimes,” “habitual intemperance,” and “maladministration.” 

Recent Impeachments

Impeachment is a rarely used method of removing judges.  In the last 15 years, only two state judges have been impeached, only one has been convicted, and only five more have been involved in impeachment investigations.

On July 12, 2000, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted to impeach Chief Justice David Brock.  The four articles of impeachment charged that Brock:

• Oversaw a practice allowing recused and disqualified justices to receive draft opinions, attend conferences on the cases, and comment on and influence rulings.
• Discussed with then-Justice Stephen Thayer who would serve as substitute justices on the appeal of Thayer's divorce case.
• Telephoned a lower court judge 13 years ago to check the status of a case involving a company owned by the then-state senate majority leader and did not tell his colleagues about the call when the case was appealed to the supreme court.
• Lied under oath to the House's judiciary committee when he denied making the call.

The House defeated attempts to impeach two other justices.

On October 10, the New Hampshire state senate voted not to convict the chief justice on any of the four articles of impeachment.  With 15 votes (two-thirds of the 22 participating senators) needed to convict, the closest vote was 14-8 in favor of acquittal on the charge of overseeing a practice that allowed justices to comment on cases from which they were recused.

Rolf Larsen of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was removed from the bench and barred from holding any public office in 1994 after being convicted by the Pennsylvania Senate of improper contact with an attorney.  Larsen was acquitted of six additional charges in the same proceeding. 

In 1997, James Heiple of the Illinois Supreme Court was the subject of an impeachment investigation by the Illinois House of Representatives.  In April 1997, the Illinois Courts Commission had censured Heiple for failing to cooperate with law enforcement officials during four traffic stops, one of which resulted in an arrest.  In May 1997, a ten-member committee of the Illinois House of Representatives concluded its impeachment investigation by recommending that no articles of impeachment against Heiple be referred to the Senate.  The investigation included charges that:  when the other justices were voting on whether to make Heiple chief justice, Heiple failed to disclose to them the fact that the Judicial Inquiry Board was investigating him; Heiple failed to recuse himself from voting on the appointment of a fellow justice as chair of the Illinois Courts Commission even though he knew the chair would preside over a hearing if the Board filed a complaint against him; and Heiple improperly avoided jury duty. 

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has seen two of its chief justices resign amid impeachment proceedings.  In 1985, Joseph A. Bevilacqua was suspended for four months without pay and publicly censured by the Rhode Island Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline for “bringing his judicial office into serious disrepute.”  The Commission’s actions stemmed from Bevilacqua’s frequent socializing with reputed mobsters and meeting women at a motel purportedly owned by men linked to drug smuggling and illegal gambling.  After Bevilacqua served his suspension, the governor and legislators initiated an investigation into whether Bevilacqua’s actions constituted grounds for impeachment.  In 1986, while impeachment hearings were taking place, Bevilacqua announced he was retiring from the bench because of “ill health.”

Shortly after Bevilacqua’s resignation in 1986, Thomas Fay was sworn in as Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court.  In 1993, Fay also resigned under threat of an impeachment investigation.  Fay was being investigated for allegedly using court funds to pay for personal expenses, choosing a business partner to arbitrate contract disputes, using court secretaries for private business, and writing letters to municipal judges on official stationery asking them to fix parking tickets for friends and family members.  In 1994, Fay was convicted of fraud in criminal court for using court funds to pay personal expenses and received a suspended sentence.

Legislative Address

Another method of removal is the bill of address, which allows the legislature, often with the governor’s consent, to vote for a judge’s removal.  Approximately sixteen states have provisions for legislative address.   Legislative address is a remnant of colonial times when, in English law, kings had the power to "address" judges from office with the consent of Parliament.  Most states, when drafting their constitutions, discarded the bill of address and incorporated some form of the impeachment process.  Unlike narrow impeachment provisions, legislative address is quite broad and allows a judge to be removed by the legislature for nearly any reason, including laziness or illness. 

Recent Bills of Address

An attempt to remove New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice David Brock by a bill of address was unsuccessful in 1999.  Among the charges alleged in the bill were that Brock “usurped legislative and executive authority” and “allowed the court to engage in policy-making that should be off-limits to the courts.”  A twelve-member legislative committee rejected the bill.

Recall Election

A few states allow for judges to be removed from office by recall election.  Judges may be subject to recall for serious offenses, which may or may not be specified in recall provisions.  The two-part process is initiated by a recall petition signed by voters and presented to election officials.  If the required number of signatures is obtained and any challenges to the recall petition are unsuccessful, a date is set for a recall election and the judge is removed if a majority of voters vote for recall.

Recent Attempts to Recall Judges

An unsuccessful recall campaign was waged against Judge Nancy Wieben Stock from the Orange County Superior Court in California.  In 1997, Judge Stock was targeted for recall after she granted O.J. Simpson custody of his children.  Recall organizers failed to obtain the requisite number of signatures to place the recall before the voters. 

Judicial Conduct Commissions

To bridge the gaps left by impeachment and legislative address provisions, judicial conduct commissions have been created by state constitutions, court rules, or statutes.  First established in California in 1960, judicial conduct commissions are now a part of every state’s judicial disciplinary process.  Commission members include judges, lawyers, and lay members.  A confidential investigation by a judicial conduct commission is generally initiated by the filing of a complaint by a member of the public. 

If a formal statement of charges is filed by a commission, a hearing (open to the public in most states) is held and members of the commission vote on whether the evidence supports the allegations in the complaint.  Sanctions may be imposed on the judge and may include reprimand, admonishment, censure, fine, suspension, involuntary retirement, or removal.  Depending on the state, the commission either makes a recommendation to the supreme court as to the appropriate sanction or imposes a sanction the judge can ask the supreme court to review.

Recent Disciplinary Actions

In 2006, as a result of state judicial discipline proceedings, 12 judges were removed from office; 11 judges resigned or retired in lieu of discipline pursuant to agreements with judicial commissions that were made public; 1 judge was required to retire; and 4 former judges were barred from serving in judicial office. 111 additional judges (or former judges in 9 cases) were publicly sanctioned in 2006. There were 18 suspensions without pay with the length of the suspensions ranging from 5 days to 2 years. There were 18 public censures, 30 public admonishments, 35 public reprimands, 2 public warning, 2 cease and desist orders, and 6 public informal adjustments.