As that aims to , no one can seem to agree on whether judges are already subject to impeachment.
That’s because the h Constitution is unclear, according to lawyers.
"There are competing sections of the current constitution,” said William Most, an attorney based in New Orleans, as he referred to and of the constitution. “One allows the legislature to impeach officials; the other gives the judiciary exclusive jurisdiction over discipline for members of the bar.”
In a recent statement, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the matter.
“We cannot provide any legal interpretation of court rules, or state or federal law,” a spokesperson for the court wrote. “Questions concerning the meaning of constitutional provisions or the historical intent of the Constitutional Convention are matters of legal analysis that we are not authorized to answer, including in matters that could arise in litigation or proceedings before the h Supreme Court.”
For decades, the state Judiciary Commission has investigated complaints against judges, and removing a judge has required the approval of the h Supreme Court.
The Legislature has not attempted to impeach a judge since Louisian’s 1973 Constitutional Convention, according to attorneys who specialize in judicial discipline.
Attorney makes case for impeachment
Steve Scheckman, who served as special counsel to the Judiciary Commission for 14 years and now represents lawyers and judges in ethics matters, believes records from the Constitutional Convention show that judges are, in fact, subject to impeachment.
During the convention, James Dennis, who later became a federal judge for the Fifth Circuit, testified that there were “two routes for removing judges,” according to a transcript of the convention.
“We have the impeachment and the judiciary commission,” he said.
“It’s been there for all these years,” said Scheckman. “There’s always been those two avenues.”
He speculated that the Legislature has never needed to impeach a judge because the Supreme Court has removed judges when necessary.
“The (judiciary) commission and Supreme Court have been taking care of business,” Scheckman said.
Pending legislation
But some believe the Judiciary Commission and Supreme Court have not been doing a good enough job of holding judges accountable.
One of those people is , R-West Monroe. His proposal, , would let voters decide whether to give the Legislature the power to remove judges for “malfeasance, gross misconduct, or incompetence committed while in office.”
The change would have to take effect through a constitutional amendment, which would appear on the ballot in April 2027.
Under the bill, the judge subject to impeachment would be entitled to a trial before the Senate. A majority of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate would need to agree to the removal.
Opponents of the proposal argue it would make judges too beholden to politics and disturb the separation of powers, giving the legislative branch too much power over the judiciary.
Last week, Morris filed , which serves as companion legislation to SB123 by defining the various grounds for impeachment. For example, it defines “incompetence” as the “lack of ability or knowledge sufficient to perform the duties of an office that leads to neglect of duty, dereliction of duty, a miscarriage of justice, or misfeasance.”
Even if impeachment is allowed under the existing constitution, current law does not include “incompetence” as grounds for impeachment. Critics worry the term is so vague that it would let lawmakers go after judges simply because they dislike their decisions.
Others are unsure whether the new law would be enforceable, as it would still compete with the state constitution section that gives judges exclusive jurisdiction over disciplining members of the bar.
“Even if this amendment were to pass, it would not resolve that tension,” Most said.