SENATE BILL REPORT

ESSJR 8202

BYSenate Committee on Law & Justice (originally sponsored by Senators Pullen, Talmadge, McCaslin, Thorsness, Rasmussen and Benitz)

Amending the Constitution to change provisions relating to the commission on judicial conduct.

Senate Committee on Law & Justice

Senate Hearing Date(s):January 17, 1989; January 26, 1989

Majority Report:     That Substitute Senate Joint Resolution No. 8202 be substituted therefor, and the substitute joint resolution do pass.

     Signed by Senators Pullen, Chairman; McCaslin, Vice Chairman; Madsen, Nelson, Rasmussen, Talmadge, Thorsness.

Senate Staff:Dick Armstrong (786-7460)

                April 11, 1989

House Committe on Judiciary

AS PASSED SENATE, MARCH 9, 1989

BACKGROUND:

During the legislative interim, several hearings were held to review the procedures used by the Commission on Judicial Conduct when it investigates complaints that a judge has violated a rule of judicial conduct.  The hearings were held in response to numerous media reports of instances where the commission allegedly failed properly to investigate misconduct by a judge.  In addition, several persons who filed complaints with the commission testified that the commission was not responsive to their complaints and that the commission operated in a manner which was overly protective of judges.

The authority of the commission to recommend, and the Supreme Court to impose, disciplinary action against a judge for misconduct, and the manner in which such proceedings are conducted are substantially governed by Article IV, Section 31 of the Washington Constitution.  A constitutional amendment would allow the commission to impose formal public disciplinary sanctions against judges and change the manner in which the commission conducts disciplinary hearings.

SUMMARY:

The constitutional provision on the Commission on Judicial Conduct is comprehensively revised to allow the Legislature, by law, to make the system for disciplining judges more open and accountable.

The existing constitutional provision on the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which contains numerous detailed provisions on the membership, authority, and procedures for disciplinary hearing, is deleted.

The proposed constitutional amendment generally provides for the formation of a Commission on Judicial Conduct.  The Legislature is to establish the membership of the commission, which is to include judges, attorneys, and nonattorneys.  The commission is authorized to conduct hearings regarding complaints against a judge and the commission may take disciplinary actions on its own or make disciplinary or retirement recommendations to the Supreme Court.

The Legislature, by law, is to provide for rules of procedures and open meetings for the commission.

Appropriation:  none

Revenue:   none

Fiscal Note:    available

Senate Committee - Testified:   Carol Hasman, Department of Youth Services of King County (pro); Walter Johnson, Citizen (pro); Paul Conrad, Allied Daily Newspapers

HOUSE AMENDMENT:

All provisions of the Senate bill are deleted and substantial changes are made to the constitutional provision creating the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The membership of the commission is increased to 11 by adding two more lay persons as members.

The commission is directed to investigate judicial misconduct in response to complaints received or on the basis of other information that may come to the attention of the commission.  The investigation and initial proceedings are to be conducted in private for the purpose of determining whether probable cause exists to believe that a judge has violated a rule of judicial conduct or is suffering from a disability.  However, upon the beginning of an initial proceeding a judge is to be notified of the basis of the proceeding.  Once a determination of probable cause has been made, all subsequent commission proceedings and all information leading to the determination are open to the public.  If the commission determines that there is no probable cause, it must notify the judge concerned of its determination.

The commission is given express authority to admonish, reprimand or censure a judge, as well as authority to recommend that the Supreme Court suspend, remove or retire a judge.  If the commission recommends action by the court, it must also censure the judge.

A judge may appeal to the Supreme Court any disciplinary action imposed by the commission.  The appeal must be taken within 30 days after the action.

The commission and a judge may sign an agreement as a way of disposing of a disciplinary action.  The agreement may impose conditions on the judge and must set forth all material facts relating to the reasons for the discipline.

The commission is directed to employ appropriately trained investigative personnel.

Except as to the confidentiality requirements of investigations and initial probable cause proceedings, the commission is subject to laws of general applicability to state agencies with respect to rule-making and open meetings.