Category: state courts

West Virginia impeachment update

From the National Constitution Center, an update on events occurring over the last couple of weeks:

In the late-night hours of August 13, West Virginia’s Republican-controlled House of Delegates passed articles of impeachment against all four sitting Justices, accusing them of maladministration, corruption, incompetence, neglect of duty, and certain high crimes. (Justice Menis Ketchum had previously resigned after being charged with wire fraud for personal use of a state vehicle and fuel card. He recently pled guilty to those charges.)

On Saturday, August 25, Gov. Jim Justice named Republicans Tim Armstead and Rep. Evan Jenkins to fill the seats vacated by Justice Robin Davis and Ketchum, both elected as Democrats. Davis had retired after the impeachment charges were approved.

Impeachment trials are set to begin in the state senate on September 11. A two-thirds senate majority is needed to convict. If any justices are convicted, Gov. Justice will appoint replacements that will serve until 2020. Armstead and Jenkins will serve until November 2018, when they will have to run in a special election to attempt to keep their seats.

This is going to get very messy, very soon.

In the wake of the ugly Aaron Persky recall, a new group arises

The June recall of Judge Aaron Persky in California has led to the formation of a new group, dedicated to making it harder for politically motivated mobs to remove judges from the bench. The Daily Post reports:

San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Barbara Kronlund, the co-chair of the newly launched Judicial Fairness Coalition, said the group wants to educate the public on the role of judges and look at amending state law to avoid future recalls over unpopular decisions.

“There should be a requirement of misconduct in office, either high crimes, misdemeanors, violating the Code of Judicial Ethics, hearing a case where you have a conflict,” Kronlund said. “It seems to me that makes a lot more sense than what we’ve got going on right now.”

Kronlund has been giving talks to Rotary and Kiwanis groups about the dangers of “baseless” attacks on judges since 2006, after Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster faced a recall threat from gay marriage opponents over his ruling in favor of same-sex domestic partnerships.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Paul Bacigalupo, co-chair of the new coalition and president of the California Judges Association, said he also wanted to look into changing the code of judicial conduct to loosen up the restrictions on judges talking about their cases.

That would allow judges to respond to criticism of their decisions, which Persky wasn’t able to do when opponents slammed him over the six-month jail sentence he gave to Stanford sex assailant Brock Turner.

As I have noted repeatedly, one can vehemently disagree with the leniency of the Turner sentence, and still conclude that the removal of Judge Persky was wholly irresponsible. That doesn’t mean that recall should be off the books entirely; if a judge repeatedly shows incompetence or indifference in applying the law or guaranteeing procedural fairness to all parties, a mechanism for removal may well be appropriate. It will be interesting to see how (and if) the Judicial Fairness Coalition works to address that balance.

Cook County’s e-filing system continues to experience problems

Cook County’s efforts to implement an electronic filing system has run into its fair share of obstacles over the past year. Last November, the Courthouse News Service filed suit against the county, alleging that the clerk’s office was delaying the posting of public documents online, in violation of the First Amendment. In December, the Illinois Supreme Court gave the county a six-month extension to implement its e-filing system (half the time the county requested), and ordered it to commit all necessary resources to completing the transition. In January, a judge issued an injunction in the Courthouse News Service case which gave the county 30 days to develop a system that would give the press full access to newly filed cases.

After months of turmoil, the e-filing system is now in place. And people don’t like it. At all.

In theory, e-filing is supposed to increase access to the courts, enabling people without an attorney in civil cases to submit legal documents from a computer instead of trekking to a courthouse. But many paralegals and attorneys who find the mandatory platform confusing worry that it’s not user-friendly for people filing motions on their own. The system, launched July 1 by an Illinois Supreme Court order, also requires registrants to have an email address and an electronic form of payment, something advocates say can create barriers for low-income people.

Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown said she is working with the vendor, Texas-based Tyler Technologies, to make the platform more intuitive. But the changes need to be approved by the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts because they are part of a statewide program, Brown said.

“It’s been very challenging and difficult for our users as well as our staff,” Brown said. “We’re really asking our users to be patient.”

 

In West Virginia, candidates “lining up” to run for vacated supreme court seats

The West Virginia Metro News has more on the aftermath of former Justice Robin Davis’s quick (and cynically partisan) resignation immediately after the state House of Delegates impeached her this week.

West Virginia House impeaches four Supreme Court Justices

The West Virginia House of Delegates has voted to impeach four justices of its (five-member) supreme court. Lawmakers were largely unified on the impeachment of Allen Loughry, a Republican whose alleged fraud has led to federal charges, as well as Republican Beth Walker. Democrats in the House expressed opposition to impeaching fellow Democrats Margaret Workman and Robin Davis. In the end, however, all four were impeached.

Davis immediately resigned from the Court, accusing the House of staging a partisan coup. Her resignation was retroactive to Monday, meaning that a special election will be held for her seat this November. Under current law, if the three remaining justices are convicted, their replacements would be appointed by Governor Jim Justice.

In her resignation speech, Davis charged the Republicans in the legislature with conducting a witch hunt, alleging that “What we are witnessing is a disaster for the rule of law, the foundation for our state and, indeed, our own society…. For when a legislative body attempts to dismantle a separate branch of government, the immediate effects, as well as the precedent it sets for the future, can only be deemed disastrous.”

Davis’s claims would be cause for sincere alarm in many states, but her own actions suggest instead that they are wholly disingenuous. Her resignation was explicitly timed to trigger a special election. Under West Virginia law, if a judge leaves the bench more than 84 days before a scheduled election, the voters choose a replacement. If the judge leaves the bench with less time before the next election, however, her replacement is chosen by the governor. Monday, unsurprisingly, was exactly 84 days before the general election.

Davis’s retroactive resignation is nothing more than a transparent political ploy.  (She is not alone: House Democrats introduced a bill later in the day that would provide for special elections for all three remaining justices if they are impeached.) While Davis has not been proven guilty of the articles of impeachment, her refusal to even contest the charges and go to trial further undermines what little public confidence must remain in the court.

This is all rather extraordinary — but less so for West Virginia, whose long history of partisan judicial elections, questionable ethical practices, and big money influence is legendary. The state’s House Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Shott, said yesterday that “No one takes joy in this process.” If that sentiment is genuine, perhaps the people of West Virginia and their elected leaders should change the judicial selection system that makes circumstances like this possible.

In any event, the process now moves to the state senate for trial, which will be conducted by the judge standing: freshly appointed interim Justice Paul Farrell. Conviction requires a 2/3 vote of the 34-member chamber. No trial date has been scheduled.

Update on West Virginia Supreme Court impeachment proceedings

Today, the West Virginia House of Delegates will begin considering articles of impeachment against 80% of its supreme court. Fourteen articles were brought against four justices last week, mostly related to overspending, fraud, and creating a culture of overspending and fraud.

The full articles of impeachment can be found here.

Meanwhile, Judge Paul Farrell was sworn in as a temporary supreme court justice on Friday, replacing Allen Loughry, who has been suspended. (Loughry continues to hold his title and is one of the four justices facing impeachment.) In a strange twist, Chief Justice Margaret Workman (who is also facing impeachment) issued an administrative order appointing Farrell as acting chief justice for impeachment proceedings. In other words, if the House votes to impeach all four justices, a brand new justice with a temporary appointment would be thrust into the unenviable position of presiding over the trial.

West Virginia moves closer to impeaching its entire supreme court

The West Virginia House Judiciary Committee has approved fourteen articles of impeachment against the four remaining members of the state supreme court. Eight articles are directed toward Allen Loughry, four each against Margaret Workman and Robin Davis, and two against Beth Walker. In some cases, more than one justice is the subject of a charge.

Menis Ketchum, who resigned from the court at the end of July, was not included in the articles of impeachment.

Loughry’s alleged fraud on taxpayers is now well-documented and is the subject of a federal proceeding. The articles against the other justices suggest a widespread culture of lavish spending and corruption. As the Charleston Gazette-Mail reports:

Each justice is charged with “unnecessary and lavish” spending of state taxpayer dollars to renovate their offices in the East Wing of the Capitol. All four of them also are charged with failing to develop and maintain court policies regarding the use of state resources, including cars, computers and funds in general.

Loughry faces additional charges related to his alleged use of state vehicles for personal travel, having state furniture and computers in his home, having personal photos, documents, photos and artwork framed on the state’s dime, and handing down an administrative order authorizing payments of senior status judges in excess of what is allowable in state law.

 

Davis and Workman are charged with signing documents authorizing that senior status judges be paid in excess of what’s allowable in state law.

One article against Walker, charging her with using state money to pay an outside attorney to author an opinion in 2017, was rejected by the committee in a 14-9 vote. The outside attorney in that matter was Barbara Allen, currently the interim Supreme Court administrator, who wasn’t employed with the court at the time she wrote the opinion, said Marsha Kauffman, attorney for the Judiciary Committee.

The committee also rejected an article against Workman that charged her with facilitating the hiring of a contracted employee to do IT work for the court as a political favor.

The articles of impeachment will now advance to the full House.

One may ask what would happen if all four remaining justices are impeached and removed. Candidates are already lining up for a special election this November for Ketchum’s spot. But unless a justice is impeached before August 14, no more special elections can be called for this year. Instead, as this article suggests, it appears that Governor Jim Justice would appoint replacement justices for all vacancies on the court, and those justices would serve until the 2020 election.

Not all courthouses are the same

Some are glorious temples to the administration of justice. Others are originally built as school buildings, retrofitted to house courtrooms and judges’ chambers, and must combat mold, crumbling walls, and occasional gunfire. The Tampa Bay Times offers an insightful report on the challenges faced by Florida’s 2d District Court of Appeal in their substandard building, and the resource allocation issues underlying their request for new quarters.

Another misguided, politically motivated judicial impeachment effort

After the shameful, politically motivated recall of California judge Aaron Persky this summer, I hoped that it would be a while before we saw another attack on a good judge who happened to give a single light sentence. Consider those hopes dashed.

Some members of the Massachusetts General Assembly are calling for the impeachment (technically the implementation of a “bill of address”) of state superior court judge Timothy Feeley, who gave probation to a convicted heroin dealer earlier this year.

The rancor over Feeley’s rulings have focused on the case of Manuel Soto-Vittini, 33, of Peabody, who in May pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine. He was caught with 15 grams of heroin — 3 grams below the threshold for a more serious trafficking charge.

Feeley gave him two years of probation, instead of the one to three years in prison that prosecutors sought, calling it “a money crime.”

Feeley also weighed Soto-Vittini’s immigration status, saying in court that if the Dominican national had been a U.S. citizen, he would likely have sent him to state prison.

Lawmakers have already called for an internal judicial investigation of the matter, which is ongoing. In that sense, the call for impeachment is likely just political posturing. But it is still corrosive and pointless. One can be dismayed by the light sentence and still conclude that removal from office is entirely inappropriate.

 

Second West Virginia supreme court justice pleads guilty to federal fraud charges

On Tuesday, federal prosecutors announced that West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Menis Ketchum had pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, stemming from his personal use of a state-issued automobile and credit card. Ketchum is the second state supreme court justice to face federal charges; former Chief Justice Allen Loughry was previously charged with 23 counts of fraud and related misconduct.

The guilty plea comes as the state legislature continues to investigate the possibility of impeachment for one or more members of the state’s highest court.