Opinion ID: 2104596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discussion on Rehearing

Text: Having properly supplemented the record to accurately reflect the proceedings before the Special Master, Respondent, on Rehearing, properly presents the following issues: 1. Respondent objects to the Commission's Supplemental Conclusion of Law No. One because the constitutional provisions do not give proper notice and fair warning to those to whom they are directed. Respondent further objects that the provisions contain vague and indefinite phrases that deny due process of law; 2. In response to the Commission's Supplemental Conclusions of Law Nos. Five and Six, Respondent contends that the Forgiveness Doctrine applies; 3. Respondent objects to the Commission's Supplemental Conclusion of Law No. Seven. Respondent maintains that the Texas Government Code requires the Commission to publish its annual report; and 4. Respondent objects to the Commission's Supplemental Conclusion of Law No. Eight, complaining that his due process rights have been violated since he was denied the opportunity to make an oral argument before the Commission regarding the constitutional issues.
In Point of Error No. One on Rehearing, Respondent objects to the Commission's Supplemental Conclusion of Law No. One because the constitutional provisions do not give proper notice and fair warning to those to whom they are directed. Respondent further contends that the constitutional provisions contain vague and indefinite phrases that deny due process of law. The Commission's Supplemental Conclusion of Law No. One stated as follows: The following provisions of the Texas Constitution and of the Code of Judicial Conduct are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, either on their face or as applied to Judge Barr's conduct: 1. Article V, Section 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution.

While vagueness and overbreadth doctrines are generally used to challenge the validity of laws defining criminal conduct, the prohibitions against vagueness and overbreadth also extend to regulations affecting conditions of government employment. In re Lowery, 999 S.W.2d 639 (Tex. Rev.Trib. 1998, pet.denied) (citing In the Matter of Seraphim, 97 Wis.2d 485, 294 N.W.2d 485, 492 (1980)). It appears from the cases which have addressed the question of unconstitutional vagueness in this context that a greater degree of flexibility is permitted with respect to judicial discipline than is allowed in criminal statutes. Id. (citing In the Matter of Seraphim, 294 N.W.2d at 492). The constitutionality of necessarily broad standards of professional conduct has long been recognized. Id. (citing In re Gillard, 271 N.W.2d 785, 809 (Minn.1978)). A statute may be successfully challenged as vague if it does not clearly define the conduct regulated, and thus does not afford an individual fair warning of what conduct is prohibited. Halleck v. Berliner, 427 F.Supp. 1225, 1240 (D.D.C. 1977). Moreover, a statute which clearly defines the conduct regulated may be unconstitutionally overbroad if it includes protected conduct within its prohibitions. Id. A statute is not necessarily invalid as vague or overbroad merely because it is difficult to determine whether marginal conduct falls within the statutory language. Id. Arguments in other jurisdictions that constitutional and statutory provisions for the discipline of judges were vague or overbroad have been consistently rejected on the ground that the Code of Judicial Conduct furnished sufficient specification of the judicial conduct which warrants disciplinary action. Id. Statutes and constitutional provisions which define in similarly broad terms the grounds for removal of judges from office have been upheld in In re Lowery, 999 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.Rev.Trib. 1998, pet.denied); Napolitano v. Ward, 317 F.Supp. 79 (N.D.Ill.1970) (for cause); Keiser v. Bell, 332 F.Supp. 608 (E.D.Pa. 1971); Halleck v. Berliner, 427 F.Supp. 1225 (D.D.C.1977); In re Nowell, 293 N.C. 235, 237 S.E.2d 246 (1977); Nicholson v. Judicial Retirement and Removal Comm., 562 S.W.2d 306 (Ky.1978); and In re Gillard, 271 N.W.2d 785 (Minn.1978). In light of these decisions, we find no merit in Respondent's contention that the standards he was found to have violated are unconstitutionally vague. While the Canons challenged in this matter may proscribe some speech and conduct which, for other persons in other circumstances, could not be constitutionally proscribed, Respondent's contention that they are unconstitutionally overbroad must be and is rejected. It is well established that judges, in company with other public servants, must suffer from time to time such limits on these rights as are appropriate to the exercise in given situations of their official duties or functions. In re Lowery, 999 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.Rev.Trib. 1998, pet.denied). The limitations imposed by the rules are made necessary by the very nature of the task which a judge seeks to perform. The citizens of the State of Texas ask nothing more, and expect nothing less. Respondent's Point of Error No. One on Rehearing is overruled.