MORGANTOWN – The resolution to change the state Constitution to prevent courts from interfering in impeachment proceedings took another step forward Monday, getting approval in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The committee had before it HJR 2, a House joint resolution that proposes a Constitutional amendment to clarify that courts have no authority or jurisdiction to intercede, intervene in or interfere with impeachment proceedings of the House of Delegates or the Senate and that a judgment rendered by the Senate following an impeachment trial is not reviewable by any state court.
Sen. Mike Romano, D-Harrison, was among the Democrats on the committee who worried the amendment’s wording might go too far.
“They should not be able to second-guess the procedures of the Legislature during impeachment proceedings,” he said. But he and others were concerned that a future Legislature might attempt to impeach someone regarding their ethnicity or political affiliation, and not regarding the issues of “maladministration, corruption, incompetency, gross immorality, neglect of duty, or any high crime or misdemeanor” described in the Constitution.
Romano said the wording of the proposed amendment might wipe out any court review of a charge based on wrongful motives or violations of the Constitution. He offered an amendment to the wording to narrow its scope to maintain protections of the person impeached.
The current wording is this: “No court of this state has any authority or jurisdiction, by writ or otherwise, to intercede or intervene in, or interfere with, any impeachment proceedings of the House of Delegates or the Senate conducted hereunder; nor is any judgment rendered by the Senate following a trial of impeachment reviewable by any court of this state.”
Romano proposed to add three words so it would read this way: “No court of this state has any authority or jurisdiction, by writ or otherwise, to intercede or intervene in, or interfere with ‘any procedures of’ any impeachment proceedings of the House of Delegates or the Senate conducted hereunder; nor is any judgment rendered by the Senate following a trial of impeachment reviewable by any court of this state.”
There was some discussion of whether the extra three words made the whole thing more confusing or did what they intended to do, but committee counsel concluded they did in fact accomplish Romano’s intent.
After all that, Romano’s proposal failed in a 4-9 show of hands.
The background of the resolution was briefly discussed. As previously reported, if it passes both houses, the amendment would be put before the voters in November for their approval.
HJR 2 stems from the summer of 2018 when the Legislature impeached four sitting state Supreme Court Justices.
The state Constitution says: “The House of Delegates shall have the sole power of impeachment. The Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments … Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit, under the state.”
After the House sent its article of impeachment to the Senate, then-Chief Justice Margaret Workman petitioned to have the proceedings against her stopped.
A substitute court sitting in for the impeached justices agreed with Workman in October 2018 and stopped the process. The court said in a 64-page letter that the Legislature violated her due process rights, violated separation of powers and that the House violated its own impeachment rules by failing to set out findings of fact and failing to pass a resolution adopting the articles of impeachment.
After Romano’s amendment failed, the committee approved the resolution in a divided voice vote. It’s slated to go next to Senate Finance.
Tweet David Beard@dbeardtdp Email dbeard@dominionpost.com
