West Virginia lawmakers aren't backing down after acting state Supreme Court justices blocked them from proceeding with an impeachment trial against Justice Margaret Workman.
That said, state Senate president Mitch Carmichael, R-Jackson, said senators have no plans to move forward with her scheduled trial Monday, as the presiding judge has already said the acting justices' decision blocks him from doing so.
Workman, who had submitted a filing with the Supreme Court to end impeachment proceedings against her, had been impeached for overpaying retired judges to serve as senior status judges, in violation of a law the Legislature passed. Lawmakers also said she failed to fulfill her administrative duty to control spending.
Acting Supreme Court justices, in an opinion delivered by Harrison County Circuit Judge James Matish, had declared the proceedings unconstitutional in an opinion Thursday.
They pointed out that the court is authorized to control its own spending and the administration of the courts. They also said the Legislature had violated the separation of powers clause of the state constitution, and found that lawmakers made procedural errors.
Acting justices noted that in 1974, West Virginia voters approved the Judicial Reorganization Amendment, which, among other things, “centralized the administration of the state’s judicial system and placed the administrative authority of the courts in the hands of this Court.” They quoted former Justice Franklin Cleckley, who noted that in the 1968 Modern Budget Amendment, West Virginians “insulated the judiciary from political retaliation by preventing the governor and legislature from reducing the judiciary's budget submissions."
They cited court decisions that found the court’s rules superseded any laws in conflict with them. They also agreed with Workman that lawmakers could not use the Code of Judicial Conduct as a basis for impeachment, as the Supreme Court “has exclusive constitutional jurisdiction over conduct alleged to be in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
In a statement Thursday, a state Senate spokeswoman had said the Senate would still convene at 9 a.m. on Monday for Workman's trial, and that the senate would appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The judge who was presiding over the impeachment, Cabell Circuit Judge Paul Farrell, then said in a statement he could not preside over the trial, because the acting justices' decision prevented the Senate from proceeding, according to the Charleston Gazette-Mail.
Friday afternoon, Senate President Carmichael said senators would convene Monday, but not for a trial.
"We are required to meet on Monday because we adjourned until that date at our last meeting, so we will convene on Monday and obviously there will be no presiding officer there from the Supreme Court, so we will be unable to conduct a trial," he said.
He said senators disagreed with the acting justices’ decision, but conceded that it would be unlikely for the Supreme Court of the United States to take the case. He added that senators would explore options in a respectful and professional manner and were planning to ask the West Virginia Supreme Court to reconsider.
He added that senators were only trying to hear the charges delegates had presented them with.
“I will say this,” he added. “The Supreme Court of West Virginia has no jurisdiction over how the Legislature conducts its business.”
Immediately following that conversation, a spokesman for the House of Delegates sent a statement:
“A strict reading of yesterday’s opinion removes all checks and balances on the judicial branch of government,” said House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay. “Clearly, that result cannot stand as law in West Virginia.”
“While the top priority of the Legislature is currently restoring a fully functional Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia and returning public confidence to the state’s judiciary, it is imperative that all three branches of government recognize — and respect — the clear constitutional authority of the other branches,” he added. “No act by any branch can negate the clear authority of the others, no matter the circumstances.
“The House will be prepared to move forward with the scheduled proceedings in the Senate on Monday morning,” Speaker Hanshaw said.
Reached by phone Friday afternoon, House spokesman Jared Hunt said that the House of Delegates couldn’t have predicted what the Senate would do and that delegates were "evaluating their options."
"They're going to find a way to move forward with this," he said.
"Lawyers are looking for a path forward right now," he added. "I can't exactly say what specifically what that is, but that's what they're doing."
West Virginia University law professor Patrick McGinley said an appeal to the United States Supreme Court would have been "doomed to failure," as the state Supreme Court's decision was based on state law.
As far as lawmakers' efforts to explore options, McGinley said, “Well I’m not as creative as these legislators.
“I teach law and I’m a lawyer,” he said. “The highest court in the state has spoken. They’ve ruled."
McGinley said the court's decision should set precedent for the other cases, although he noted that one impeached justice, Robin Davis, has already retired, and one, Allen Loughry, was found guilty of criminal charges Friday. Another, Beth Walker, was acquitted of her impeachment charges earlier this month.
"I can't imagine what they can do outside of following the law," he said.
McGinley said he hears people commenting that "the Legislature should get back to the job of legislating and follow the law as the court has pronounced it."
Justices Workman, Beth Walker, and acting Supreme Court Justice Paul Farrell had recused themselves from Workman’s case, and assigned former Supreme Court Justice Thomas McHugh to appoint an acting justice, according to an administrative order signed by Workman.
McHugh had assigned Matish to preside over Workman’s trial, according to another administrative order.
Some lawmakers have questioned whether assigned justices would be impartial. Hunt, the House spokesman had said, "A lot of people within the House don't believe the court has the authority to even review this."
“Well, that’s the way the law has been written and those are the rules that apply in such situations, and they don’t like the results,” McGinley said. “Now I’m sure there are members of the Legislature who would have liked to have picked the judges."
In the acting justices' opinion, they had written:
"The greatest fear we should have in this country today is ourselves. If we do not stop the infighting, work together, and follow the rules; if we do not use social media for good rather than use it to destroy; then in the process, we will destroy ourselves."
Email: ebeck@register-herald.com and follow on Twitter @3littleredbones
