Opinion ID: 1401746
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Commission on Judicial Discipline

Text: Petitioner alleges that the Initiative creates a second subject through language altering the powers of the Judicial Discipline Commission. We agree. Initiative # 104 would alter the following procedures applicable to the proceedings of the Commission on Judicial Discipline: (1) it would require the disclosure of all documents, regardless of whether the Commission reaches a negative finding; (2) it would alter the confidentiality afforded to complainants and witnesses in proceedings before the Commission; and (3) it would deprive the Commission of its disciplinary discretion by imposing a mandatory requirement that all judges subject to a negative disciplinary finding be suspended without pay, pending a retention election the following November. The aforementioned changes would be the result of Initiative # 104's repeal of Article VI, Section 23(3)(g), which provides, inter alia : Prior to the filing of a recommendation to the supreme court by the commission against any justice or judge, all papers filed with and proceedings before the commission on judicial discipline or masters appointed by the supreme court, pursuant to this subsection (3), shall be confidential, and the filing of papers with and the giving of testimony before the commission or the masters shall be privileged.... In lieu of Section 23(3)(g), Initiative # 104 provides for the mandatory public disclosure of all disciplinary proceedings and findings, regardless of the outcome of said proceedings, and of all documents (including all complaints and papers) filed in connection with same. Our prior decisions regarding other versions of the instant Initiative have repeatedly held that provisions which alter the powers of the Commission on Judicial Discipline constitute an additional subject. See In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-1998 # 64, 960 P.2d at 1199-1200 (finding that alteration of Commission powers was impermissible because the Commission on Judicial Discipline is an independent constitutional body whose members are not `judicial officers' ); accord In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 No. 29, 972 P.2d at 263; In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-1998 No. 95, 960 P.2d at 1208-09. We again hold that provisions which alter the powers of the Commission on Judicial Discipline constitute an additional subject.