Opinion ID: 2086320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Salary and Emoluments Delaware Constitutional History

Text: Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our legal system. [29] The sine qua non of judicial independence is the freedom to decide cases without fear of retribution. Alexander Hamilton stated: The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.... Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all of the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. [30] This nation made its Declaration of Independence, in part, because the King of England made judges dependent upon his Will alone, for the tenure of their office, and the amount and payment of their salaries. [31] The constitutional questions that have been certified to this Court require an interpretation of Article XV, § 4 in the Delaware Constitution. Article XV, § 4 reflects part of Delaware's constitutional commitment to preserving the independence and integrity of its judiciary for more than two centuries. [32] Its most venerable antecedent is found in the 1792 Delaware Constitution, which was modeled after a similar provision in the United States Constitution. In 1787, the Framers of the United States Constitution provided for judges to hold their Office during good Behavior, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuation in office. [33] The Framers concluded that it was necessary to restrict the power of the legislature to change the condition of the individual [judge] for the worse. [34] According to Hamilton, the term diminished in the Compensation Clause forbade any action that would result in such a change. [35] James Madison concurred with this view and further stated that compensation extended to all emoluments of the judicial office. [M]embers of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be nominal. [36] As the first state to ratify the United States Constitution, Delaware was familiar with its provisions. When the 1792 Delaware Constitution was adopted, it included some provisions that were similar to those in the United States Constitution and many provisions that were modified after careful consideration. [37] Although the section providing for judicial compensation and tenure in the 1792 Delaware Constitution was more expansive than its counterpart in the 1787 United States Constitution, two important concepts were identical. The 1792 Delaware Constitution provided for judges to hold their offices during good behaviour .... [and to...] receive for their services adequate salaries, to be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.... [38] It is not surprising that the 1792 Delaware Constitution included these two specific provisions protecting judicial independence. Section 22 in the Declaration of Rights and Fundamental Rules of the Delaware State, enacted September 11, 1776, had provided: That the independency and uprightness of judges are essential to the impartial Administration of Justice, and a great Security to the Rights and Liberties of the People. [39] The 1897 Delaware Constitutional Convention delegates considered several issues that were related to the independence of the judiciary. [40] The delegates soundly rejected the concept of electing judges in favor of appointment by the Governor. They also added a provision for confirmation of judicial nominees by the Senate and required essentially a bipartisan judiciary. [41] The delegates changed the tenure of judicial service from good behavior to a fixed term of twelve years. [42] They also decided to not only retain the provision from the 1792 Delaware Constitution that prohibited a diminution in judicial salaries, but expanded it to include emoluments of office and extended this constitutional protection to all public officers in Delaware. [43] With regard to extending to all public officers the prohibition against diminishing their compensation, the Delaware Constitutional Convention delegates debated the provision that ultimately became Article XV, § 4 in the 1897 Delaware Constitution, which provided: No law shall extend the term of any public officer or diminish his salary or emoluments after his election or appointment. Before this section was adopted, the delegates discussed its necessity. In comparing it to the similar provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution from which it was derived, William R. Spruance stated: In Pennsylvania a constitutional provision of this character contained in almost identically this language is found, but that the additional words or increase are in there. No law shall extend the term of any public officer, or increase or diminish his salary or emoluments, after his election or appointment. The Committee thought it wise not to put in those words or increase. The danger there is that you cut off a man's term, or you diminish his office because he doesn't do what you want him to do. [44] Mr. Spruance, in responding to concerns voiced by Andrew L. Johnson regarding the wisdom of such a constitutional provision, explained: [T]his proposed amendment, so far as it relates to Constitutional terms, means that the Legislature shall not have the power to extend the terms, nor to diminish salaries. [45] Article XV, § 4 of the Delaware Constitution was adopted by the 1897 Convention, as proposed. Its purpose has been succinctly explained, as follows: [C]onstitutional provisions such as ours are designed not merely to safeguard the officials concerned, but, more importantly, in doing so, to protect the public from having to deal with officials who might treat them unfairly out of the dread of such personal disfavor as could result in a salary cut or the loss of some cherished emolument, i.e., to preserve the independence of those officers. [46] Accordingly, Article XV, § 4 protects the independence of all Delaware public officers, not only judges, from the vicissitudes of partisan politics. The early decisions that interpreted Article XV, § 4 did not involve judges [47] but established four bright-line principles: [First]: Constitutional provisions of the character of article 15, section 4, of the Constitution of this State, will not permit the diminution of an officer's salary or emoluments after his election or appointment. If such a course were permissible, when a change of administration took place it might happen that the Legislature would reduce the salary of the appointees of the opposing political party. [48] [Second]: The term emoluments is defined as the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office as salary, fees and prerequisites; advantage; gain, public or private. [49] [Third]: Such provisions are mandatory and prevent either direct or indirect changes. This proposition is supported by many decided cases. [50] [Fourth]: A constitutional provision forbidding the change of the compensation of an official during his term of office is inexorable. It admits of no exception and it affords no opportunity for evasion by the Legislature or other body. [51] The 1977 decisions in Carper v. Stiftel and Stiftel v. Malarkey, are the seminal opinions construing the application of these four bright-line principles to statutory enactments involving the judiciary. In Carper v. Stiftel , this Court held that the definition of emoluments, as that term is used in Article XV, § 4 of the Delaware Constitution, includes a judicial pension system [52] and that a diminution can be caused by an increase in pension contributions as well as a decrease in benefits. [53] In Stiftel v. Malarkey, a companion case to the Superior Court Judges' litigation in Carper, this Court held that statutory enactments in 1976 that took away from public officers the prospective cost of living increments that had been legislated in 1975, violated Article XV, § 4 of the Delaware Constitution. [54] In 1979, the General Assembly responded to the holding in Stiftel v. Malarkey by amending Article XV, § 4 to clarify what would constitute a diminishment in salary or emoluments. [55] Thus, the amendment states that neither salary nor emoluments should be construed to mean increases in salary or emoluments scheduled by statute for a future date and not yet received by the officer. [56] That amendment did not disturb, however, the holding in Carper v. Stiftel that a pension system was an emolument of judicial office that could not be diminished. Moreover, the amendment provides that salary or emoluments does include actual salary or emoluments being provided an officer at any time during his tenure in office. The amended Article XV, § 4 now states, in relevant part: No law shall extend the term of any public officer or diminish the salary or emoluments after his election or appointment. The term salary or emoluments as used herein refers to the actual salary or emoluments being provided an officer at any time during his tenure in office and shall not be construed to mean increases in salary or emoluments scheduled by statute for a future date and not yet received by the officer. This Court has not been called upon to construe Article XV, § 4 since the amendment became effective in 1979.