Opinion ID: 877940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the judicial standards commission

Text: The provision in the 1972 Montana Constitution for a Judicial Standards Commission arose from a void at that time in our system as to the removal of corrupt, venal or incompetent judges. Before 1972, a judge could be removed from office only by impeachment through the State legislature, unless the electorate turned him out of office. Impeachment, Art. V, § 17, 1889 Montana Constitution, was limited to high crimes and misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office. For those officers not subject to impeachment, the legislature was empowered by the 1889 Montana Constitution to provide for their removal for misconduct or malfeasance in office. Art. V, § 18, idem. The full text of the 1972 constitutional provision then in effect for the Judicial Standards Commission (Art. VII, § 11) is as follows: Section 11. Removal and discipline. (1) The legislature shall create a judicial standards commission consisting of five persons and provide for the appointment thereto of two district judges, one attorney, and two citizens who are neither judges nor attorneys. (2) The commission shall investigate complaints, make rules implementing this section, and keep its proceedings confidential. It may subpoena witnesses and documents. (3) Upon recommendation of the commission, the supreme court may: (a) Retire any justice or judge for disability that seriously interferes with the performance of his duties and is or may become permanent; or (b) Censure, suspend, or remove any justice or judge for willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his duties, or habitual intemperance. In considering the adoption of that provision, the constitutional convention spoke little of the provisions relating to malfeasance or misconduct in office. Tr. 3469 to 3484. The convention seems concerned especially with tactfully removing judges from office who may have become disabled or incompetent by reason of age. In speaking for the adoption of the amendment, Delegate Aronow stated in part: ... This is a committee which we created in the majority part of the committee report, modeled somewhat after New Mexico. It has been revised; some things have been taken out of California ... Tr. 3471. In 1973 the legislature, following the directions of the constitutional provision, provided for the creation and composition of the Judicial Standards Commission. With respect to investigations, and action by the Supreme Court, the legislature provided, inter alia: 3-1-1106. Investigation of judicial officers  hearing  recommendations. (1) The commission or any citizen of the state may, upon good cause shown, initiate an investigation of any judicial officer in the state by filing a verified written complaint with the commission. (2) The commission, after such investigation as it considers necessary and upon the finding of good cause, may: (a) order a hearing to be held before it concerning the censure, suspension, removal, or retirement of a judicial officer; or (b) request the supreme court to appoint one or more special masters who are judges of courts of record to hear and take evidence and to report to the commission. (3) If after hearing or after considering the record and report of the masters the commission finds the charges true, it shall recommend to the supreme court the censure, suspension, removal, or retirement of the judicial officer. 3-1-1107. Action by supreme court. The supreme court shall review the record of the proceedings and shall make such determination as it finds just and proper and may: (1) order censure, suspension, removal, or retirement of a judicial officer; or (2) wholly reject the recommendation. Following the appointment and organization of the Commission, it adopted rules, which provide in part as follows: Rule 9 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION a. Upon receipt of Verified Statement. The Commission, upon receiving a verified statement, not obviously unfounded or frivolous, alleging facts indicating that a judge is guilty of action occurring during, or not more than six years prior to the commencement of, his current term that constitutes willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, or that he has a disability that seriously interferes with the performance of his duties, and is, or is likely to become permanent, shall make a preliminary investigation to determine whether further proceedings should be instituted and a hearing held. b. On Own Motion. The commission, without receiving a verified statement, may make such a preliminary investigation on its own motion. (Emphasis added.)