SENATE BILL REPORT

SJR 8202

BYSenators 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)

                January 27, 1989

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON LAW & JUSTICE, JANUARY 26, 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.  Therefore, a constitutional amendment is necessary if changes are to be made to the composition of the commission and the manner in which it investigates and disciplines judges for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

SUMMARY:

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

Citizen participation is increased by adding an additional nonattorney to the membership of the commission.  Attorney representatives selected by the State Bar Association are decreased from two to one, thus shifting the balance on the commission to five nonattorneys and four attorneys.  All members of the commission are subject to Senate confirmation.

All complaints against a judge for violating a rule of judicial conduct are filed with the commission.  The commission is to conduct a confidential initial proceeding to determine if sufficient reason exists for conducting a public hearing on the complaint.  All hearings subsequent to the initial proceedings are to be open to the public.  If a judge waives confidentiality, the entire file is to be opened to the public.

The commission can admonish, reprimand, or censure a judge without the approval of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court retains its existing authority to suspend, remove or retire a judge from judicial office upon recommendation of the commission.  All actions of the commission to discipline or retire a judge are to be made public.  The commission is required to notify a complainant in writing as to the final disposition of the complaint.

If the commission recommends suspension or removal of a judge, a report must be filed with the Legislature, and the House of Representatives is to consider impeachment.

The commission is to be an agency of state government and not an independent agency of the judiciary.

The Legislature is to establish rules of procedure for the commission, which are to include provisions on the confidentiality of proceedings.

EFFECT OF PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE:

Technical amendments are made to clarify the intent of the constitutional amendment.

A specific standard is established for the commission to proceed from an initial proceeding to a public hearing.  The commission must determine if it has "sufficient reason to believe that the allegations are true and, if proven, would result in disciplinary action or retirement."

The commission is to establish rules for the commission.  The rules are to provide for due process, confidentiality, and waiver of confidentiality.  The rules are to address the privacy interests of judges and persons giving confidential information to 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