Opinion ID: 2630864
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Removal only by impeachment or recall

Text: ¶ 12 Smith's primary claim is that he can be removed from office only by impeachment or recall and then only for the reasons set forth in the constitution. He bases his claim on Article 8, Part 2, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides that, on vote of two-thirds of the members of the Senate, a state officer may be removed from office for high crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office. ¶ 13 The argument that a state officer may be removed from office only as prescribed in the constitution was squarely raised and rejected in State ex rel. DeConcini v. Sullivan, 66 Ariz. 348, 355, 188 P.2d 592, 596 (1948). In Sullivan, this court observed that while the constitution may limit legislative powers, unless a power is expressly or by implication precluded, the legislature retains power to act. Id. at 356-57, 188 P.2d at 597. The court concluded that Article 8, Part 2 does not limit the power of the legislature to devise additional methods of and causes for removal and therefore does not provide the exclusive means of removal from public office. Id. at 357, 188 P.2d at 598; cf. A.R.S. § 1-253(B) (2002) (permitting impeachment, removal, deposition or suspension from office for certain offenses, even if the offense does not specify removal from office as a potential penalty). If, as Smith contends, the constitutional means were exclusive, the legislature would be unable to enact laws allowing removal of one who had become mentally incompetent or physically unable to hold office. As this court noted in Sullivan, that constitutional provision was intended to protect the public by making it easier to remove public officers, not to protect malfeasing public servants. 66 Ariz. at 358-59, 188 P.2d at 599. ¶ 14 In this case, the public, acting in its legislative capacity, authorized removal from public office as a sanction for serious violations of the campaign finance laws. See A.R.S. § 16-942(C). Smith agreed to abide by those terms when he sought to finance his campaign with public funds. A.R.S. § 16-947(A), (B) (requiring participating candidates to file an affidavit with the Secretary of State's Office pledging adherence to campaign finance laws). His removal was not precluded by any provision of the Arizona Constitution. ¶ 15 Smith counters that Holmes v. Osborn, 57 Ariz. 522, 115 P.2d 775 (1941), held that impeachment and recall are the sole means of removing elected officials from office. The language on which he relies from that case, however, is dictum, as that case dealt with the legislature's unquestioned power to provide the means for removal of members of the Industrial Commission. Id. at 537, 115 P.2d at 782. Moreover, the records of the Arizona Constitutional Convention suggest that the drafters of our constitution anticipated that the legislature could devise other grounds for removal. See John S. Goff, RECORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1910, 921-22 (1991) (noting that there is no need to make a provision in the constitution for removal of elected officials and executive appointees because the legislature will have the power to do that without authorization in the constitution). Impeachment is therefore not the sole means of removal for elected officials, nor are the reasons for removal limited to those listed in Article 8, Part 2, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution. ¶ 16 Smith's claim that he cannot be removed except by impeachment or recall fails.