Court Opinion

ID: 9689044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:17:13.349355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:43.663255
License: Public Domain

Ryan, J.
We are presented in this case with questions pertaining to findings and recommendations of the Judicial Tenure Commission and the power of this Court as it relates to the discipline of members of the state judiciary. The questions are of first impression and arise because respondent Charles V. Probert, the subject of the proceedings before us, is no longer a judge.
Respondent maintains that his departure from judicial office since the institution of formal disci*222plinary proceedings divested the commission of jurisdiction over him and precludes this Court from imposing effective discipline. It follows, he contends, that we should reject the commission’s recommendation of discipline. We find this argument unpersuasive.
In response to the conduct detailed in Part III of this opinion, the commission has recommended that respondent "be removed from judicial office and permanently enjoined from holding such office in the future”. We conclude that because respondent is presently not a judge and because we are not expressly empowered to enter an injunction of the nature sought here, we cannot implement the specific recommendations of the commission.
We hold further, however, that respondent is not beyond our disciplinary reach and conclude that he should be censured and conditionally suspended for five years, regardless of any possible intervening election or appointment to judicial office.
The facts and procedural history of the case are fully delineated in Part I of Justice Levin’s opinion.
I
In 1968, the people of Michigan amended the state constitution and established the commission.
"(1) A judicial tenure commission is established consisting of nine persons selected for three-year terms as follows: Four members shall be judges elected by the judges of the courts in which they serve; one shall be a court of appeals judge, one a circuit judge, one a probate judge and one a judge of a court of limited jurisdiction. Three shall be members of the state bar who shall be elected by the members of the state bar of whom one *223shall be a judge and two shall not be judges. Two shall be appointed by the governor; the members appointed by the governor shall not be judges, retired judges or members of the state bar. Terms shall be staggered as provided by rule of the supreme court. Vacancies shall be filled by the appointing power.
"(2) On recommendation of the judicial tenure commission, the supreme court may censure, suspend with or without salary, retire or remove a judge for conviction of a felony, physical or mental disability which prevents the performance of judicial duties, misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance or conduct that is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice. The supreme court shall make rules implementing this section and providing for confidentiality and privilege of proceedings.” Const 1963, art 6, § 30 (hereinafter § 30).
Section 30(2) prescribes four kinds of discipline: censure, suspension (with or without salary), retirement, and removal. Respondent avers that once a judge leaves office the question of judicial discipline is rendered moot and the commission’s jurisdiction over him is lost. Implicit in the argument is the view that § 30(2) discipline befits incumbent judges only. This is the position espoused by Justice Levin, who concludes that "§ 30 authorizes the recommendation and imposition of discipline for incumbent judges only”.1 Thus, upon a judge’s resignation or the expiration of his term, our colleague holds, commission proceedings must cease and this Court’s power to discipline that person under § 30(2) evaporates. We do not read that provision so narrowly.
Indeed, it is difficult to conceptualize how one who does not hold judicial office could be suspended, retired, or removed from office. Nevertheless, we have on at least three occasions issued *224conditional suspensions that would have foreclosed the exercise of the prerogatives inhering in any judicial office to which the disciplined party might have been elected or appointed in the future, the condition being, of course, re-election or appointment to judicial office. In the Matter of Mikesell, 396 Mich 517, 549; 243 NW2d 86 (1976); In the Matter of Del Rio, 400 Mich 665, 672, fns 3-4; 256 NW2d 727 (1977); In the Matter of Bennett, 403 Mich 178, 200; 267 NW2d 914 (1978). The effect of those suspensions would have been to disengage the disciplined party from judicial power, but only had that person come to occupy judicial office again during the term of the suspension, and only to the extent that the terms of office and suspension coincided. Clearly, it is immaterial to a suspension of this nature whether or not the disciplined party holds judicial office when the suspension is imposed.2 A conditional suspension, therefore, is not appropriately taken against incumbent judges only.3
Furthermore, it is not at all difficult to conceptualize how one who does not hold judicial office could be censured. Respondent himself concedes the possibility. In light of the purposes of judicial discipline,4 the censure of a former judge may be entirely expedient.
*225When we are confronted with a case of misconduct in office and the question of judicial discipline arises, we are obliged to make a judgment concerning the respondent’s fitness to be a judge in light of his misconduct. Thus, a decision to enter an order of judicial discipline must be responsive to individual considerations. But our concern encompasses more: when one commits judicial misconduct he not only marks himself as a potential subject of judicial discipline, he denigrates an institution.5 Accordingly, a decision on judicial discipline must also be responsive to a significant institutional consideration, "the preservation of the integrity of the judicial system”.6 Institutional integrity, after all, is at the core of institutional effectiveness.
When a judge charged with misconduct removes himself from judicial office to avoid the notoriety and ignominy incident to disciplinary proceedings and the possibility of sanctions, censure, if deserved, may be essential to "the preservation of the integrity of the judicial system”, especially if that integrity has been critically undermined, because the alternative, silence, may be construed by the public as an act of condonation.7
As earlier stated, respondent asserts that because he is no longer a judge the case is moot.
*226Because the possibilities of censure and conditional suspension remain after a judge charged with misconduct steps down or fails to be reelected, a judicial discipline case does not become moot the instant the judge leaves office. Effective relief can still be granted; a controversy still exists. See generally Del Rio, supra, 685-686; McCarthy v Wayne Circuit Judge, 294 Mich 368, 373; 293 NW 683 (1940); Detroit v Killingsworth, 48 Mich App 181, 183; 210 NW2d 249 (1973). Establishment of a rule, therefore, calling for immediate termination of commission proceedings upon a judge’s leaving office is unwarranted.
Such a rule would also be unwise. A judge charged with misconduct should not have the power, simply by leaving office, to short-circuit investigation of the allegations against him, leav*227ing the proceedings incomplete and subject to the abrasion of time.8 Events pertaining to alleged judicial misconduct and the recommendation of the commission with respect to those events should be as close in time as possible. There is good reason, therefore, for commission proceedings to continue until completed, notwithstanding a judge’s resignation or failure to be re-elected after the filing of a complaint.
We are advised that as a matter of policy, "the [commission has declined to act further after termination of a respondent’s judicial office by resignation, by failure to be re-elected, or by death”.9 This policy no doubt developed in light of the commission’s estimation of the most effectual allocation of its resources. Once an unfit or incompetent judge is separated from judicial power, the greatest danger has passed. Be that as it may, this Court should not and will not transform that *228policy into a fast, inflexible rule of law that would preclude contrary action when the commission, in its considered judgment and discretion, deems it appropriate.10
Furthermore, to hold that this Court has no power to discipline a former judge would work undue mischief, which would be most apparent, for example, in a case in which a judge leaves office after his case is submitted to us and only the question of discipline remains. Such a holding would mean that at a time when the commission has completed its work and we have before us all the information and materials necessary to render judgment, our power to vindicate the integrity of the judiciary could nonetheless be negated by wholly irrelevant occurrences such as the expira*229tion of the judge’s term of office, his resignation, or the length of time we take to decide the case.
II
The question whether this Court is empowered to permanently enjoin respondent from holding judicial office in the future remains. Our authority to discipline members of the state judiciary flows from two sources, §§ 30 and 4 of article 6 of the Michigan Constitution.
The four types of discipline § 30 empowers this Court to impose — censure, suspension, removal, and retirement — do not appear to comprehend the permanent injunction sought here.11
Section 4 embodies a more general grant of power, the power of superintending control.
"The supreme court shall have general superintending control over all courts; power to issue, hear and determine prerogative and remedial writs; and appellate jurisdiction as provided by rules of the supreme court. The supreme court shall not have the power to remove a judge.” Const 1963, art 6, § 4 (hereinafter § 4).
As explained in In re Huff, 352 Mich 402, 418; 91 NW2d 613 (1958):
"The superintending control conferred by Constitution on this Court is a power separate, independent and distinct from its other original jurisdiction and appellate powers, its purpose being 'to keep the courts themselves "within bounds” and to insure the harmonious *230working of our judicial system.’ Such power having been conferred by Constitution upon this Court, it also received all the power necessary to make that control and its implementing orders and writs effective.” (Citations omitted.)
The Huff Court also outlined the great breadth of the power:
" 'The power of superintending control is an extraordinary power. It is hampered by no specific rules or means for its exercise. It is so general and comprehensive that its complete and full extent and use have practically hitherto not been fully and completely known and exemplified. It is unlimited, being bounded only by the exigencies which call for its exercise. As new instances of these occur, it will be found able to cope with them. Moreover, if required, the tribunals having authority to exercise it will, by virtue of it, possess the power to invent, frame, and formulate new and additional means, writs, and processes whereby it may be exerted. This power is not limited by forms of procedure or by the writ used for its exercise. Furthermore, it is directed primarily to inferior tribunals, and its relation to litigants is only incidental.’ ” Id., 417-418.
It is true that § 4 explicitly prohibits this Court from utilizing its power of superintending control to remove a judge.12 Nevertheless, "for the purpose of protecting the purity of judicial processes and maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice”, we indefinitely enjoined a judge "from exercising the powers and duties of [his] office” pursuant to our power of superintending control. Ransford v Graham, 374 Mich 104, 108; *231131 NW2d 201 (1964); In re Graham, 366 Mich 268, 280-281 fn of Reporter; 114 NW2d 333 (1962) (same case); accord, In re Mussman, 112 NH 99; 289 A2d 403 (1972); In the Matter of DeSaulnier, 360 Mass 787; 279 NE2d 296 (1972).
It is important to stress that our opinion today does not signal a retreat from the sound principles enunciated in Huff, supra, and Graham, supra. As the head of the state judiciary, it is this Court’s duty " 'to keep the [Michigan] courts * * * "within bounds” and to insure the harmonious working of our judicial system’ ”. Huff, supra, 418. That system is only as good as its constituent judges. Accordingly, § 4 invests this Court with the power to determine that a person is unfit for judicial office and to prevent him from ever exercising judicial power in this state for as long as he is, in our judgment, judicially unfit.13
Section 4 does not explicitly bar us from permanently enjoining one from holding judicial office. The provision, however, does declare that we have no power to remove a judge. We do not find in this *232specific prohibition a cognate prohibition against the permanent injunction recommended here. If a permanent injunction were truly a form of "removal”, consistency would compel the judgment that § 30, which authorizes us to "remove” a judge, permits us to enter a permanent injunction, but, clearly, this is not the case.14
The language of § 4 neither permits nor forbids us to issue a permanent injunction against the holding of judicial office. The lack of superintending power to remove does not itself unavoidably entail a similar lack of superintending power to permanently enjoin. Removal deprives the judge of a more significant and tangible interest — his existing judgeship — than the interest impinged upon by a permanent injunction — the potentiality of attaining a judgeship — which is more problematic and uncertain.15
Nonetheless, a permanent injunction might implicate the right of the voters of Michigan to choose those who would hold judicial office. As our Brother Levin correctly observes, the recommended injunction would "prevent the electorate from ever again effectively exercising the franchise in favor of a particular person”.16 That suffrage is bestowed by our constitution. Const 1963, art 2, § 1; art 6, §§ 2, 8, 12, 16. Section 4 should be construed, if possible, to harmonize with other constitutional provisions.17 We agree, therefore, *233that § 4 does not comprehend the power to permanently enjoin a person from holding judicial office.18
Ill
Charles V. Probert no longer holds judicial office. The commission recommends that he "be [(1)] removed from judicial office and [(2)] permanently enjoined from holding such office in the future”.
The first recommendation is moot.
The second recommendation cannot be carried out for the reasons discussed in Part II.
Nonetheless, the possibilities of censure and conditional suspension remain,19 and, therefore, our decision to deny the commission’s recommendation does not foreclose the question of discipline.
The commission divided its findings into four general categories:
"(1) Respondent habitually and willfully disregarded statutes, court rules, canons and other ethical responsibilities in the administration of justice;
"(2) Respondent improperly used his judicial office to benefit his friends and court employees;_
*234"(3) Respondent engaged in conduct giving rise to impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; and
"(4) Respondent exhibited a gross lack of judicial temperament and impartiality.”
The commission elaborated its findings as follows:
"(1) As to the first general category, we adopt, as fully supported by the record, the findings that respondent wrongfully: thwarted the right of criminal defendants to appointed counsel; denied defendants the right to reasonable bail and perverted the bail process to unsuitable and improper purposes; denied defendants the right to an appeal bond; routinely denied the clear statutory right of misdemeanants to post a ten percent bond; and habitually abused his contempt power. Respondent’s extrajudicial confiscation of weapons, however well motivated, constituted an act of judicial lawlessness. Under the same general category, respondent’s refusal to obey an order of a superior court was an act of insubordination and conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice. See In the Matter of Bennett, 403 Mich 178; 267 NW2d 914 (1978).
"Concerning the allegation in paragraph 12, the proofs showed respondent’s unlawful acceptance in the Jacobs case of a guilty plea to a felony written on an appearance ticket. This is an action without any jurisdiction or justification and is a serious disregard of proper procedure. It pales by comparison to respondent’s subsequent alteration of court and police records, his perjury in the court records, and his falsification of judicial records, all in an effort to cover up his misconduct.
"We find that the foregoing misconduct evaluated in its totality constitutes conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice, misconduct in office, and persistent failure to perform judicial duties as proscribed by Const 1963, art 6, § 30, and GCR 1963, 932.4.
"(2) With regard to the second general category, we make the following observations: respondent improperly used his judicial office to benefit his friends and court employees. He abused the processes of the court, including his contempt power, to obtain a material benefit for *235the nephew of his court constable. In a similar manner, he procured an employment test for his friend, and assisted her in preparing answers in advance of the test. * * *
"We find that this constitutes misconduct in office and conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice within the purview of Const 1963, art 6, § 30, and GCR 1963, 932.4.
"(3) As to the third general category, conduct giving rise to impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, we find respondent’s public intoxication and associated misconduct to be a grave breach of his responsibilities. * * *
"Respondent’s drunkenness as proven did not involve his activities on the bench. However, his notorious, flagrant, and boorish behavior in the bars around Wyoming, Michigan, created a public spectacle, and doubtless scandalized the community. Thereby, he violated his duty to behave, 'in a sense * * * as though he is always on the bench’. Bennett, supra.
"We find that his behavior failed to avoid impropriety and its appearance and was conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice within the meaning of Const 1963, art 6, § 30, and GCR 1963, 932.4. We find further that respondent’s conduct aforesaid was such as to bring his office into disrepute.
"(4) As to respondent’s gross lack of judicial temperament and impartiality, there are two general areas of misconduct. The first is respondent’s injudicious behavior during arraignments and sentencings. The concrete examples of misconduct are legion and are fully and adequately discussed in the report of the master. Frequently, respondent interjected extraneous matters into the proceeding and made it appear that his determination in the case rested on them. He bullied and badgered defendants. In a number of cases as proven, the judge brandished his peculiar conceptualization of the relationship between the court and the police, referring to 'my police officers’. Particularly shocking conduct appears in People v Joseph Bouwhuis, and its companion cases. There, he told the defendants that there were 'pimps, murderers and homosexuals out at the Kent *236County Jail’ and the defendants would be 'some fresh meat for them’. Respondent’s frequent statements at arraignments, as in that particular case, that the defendants 'don’t need an attorney, but need a miracle worker instead’ necessarily suggested that respondent had prejudged their case.
"In People v Gary Schultz, respondent referred to the defendant as a 'little bastard’ from the bench. In People v Charles Sharpe, respondent’s demeaning, sarcastic remarks about the defendant’s admitted homosexuality made it obvious that Judge Probert sentenced him not for what he did, but for what he was.
"Another aspect of respondent’s partiality and unjudicial temperament manifested itself during the preliminary examinations or trials in People v Gary Bolot, People v Scott Selkirk, People v Thomas McKellar, People v Alan Metzger, and People v Nicholas Busser. In the most crude and overbearing way, respondent interfered with the normal course of these proceedings and sought to obtain the desired result without the formality of a trial. Under these circumstances, respondent, like Judge Del Rio, himself improperly coerced guilty pleas. Del Rio, 702.
"We find this to be misconduct in office and conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice, in contravention of the provisions of Const 1963, art 6, § 30, and GCR 1963, 932.4.”
A review of the record reveals that the findings of the commission are amply supported. Further, respondent has filed no objection to the master’s report upon which they are based. We therefore adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the quoted portions of the commission’s opinion.
To sum up, we find, as did the commission, that respondent’s actions, taken as a whole, constitute conduct clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice, misconduct in office, and persistent failure to perform judicial duties, all proscribed by Const 1963, art 6, § 30, and GCR 1963, 932.4.
*237Certainly, this egregious misconduct and judicial perfidy warrant the imposition of disciplinary measures. This Court cannot ignore respondent’s acts, not only because they violate the laws of this state, but also because, as stated in Del Rio:
"[T]he real issue in this case [is] the preservation of the integrity of the judicial system.
"The functions and decisions of a judge have an incalculable impact on the community at large. A citizen’s experience with the law is/often confined to contact with the courts. Therefore, it is important not only that the integrity of the judiciary be preserved but that the appearance of that integrity be maintained.” Del Rio, 725.
The foregoing analysis applies with equal force to respondent.
Accordingly, in light of the nature and extent of his misconduct as documented by the commission, and pursuant to GCR 1963, 932.25, we hereby censure Charles V. Probert and impose a five-year conditional suspension without pay effective the date of this decision. Should he regain judicial office during that time, Mr. Probert will nevertheless be debarred from exercising the power and prerogatives of the office until at least the expiration of the suspension. Pursuant to GCR 1963, 866, the clerk of the Court is ordered to issue final process immediately upon release of this opinion.
Coleman, C.J., and Williams, Fitzgerald, and Blair Moody, Jr., JJ., concurred with Ryan, J.

 Justice Levin’s opinion, p 245 (emphasis added).

 The fact that the respondents in Mikesell, Del Rio, and Bennett were sitting judges when we imposed discipline and respondent is not is a distinction without a difference insofar as this Court’s power to impose the conditional suspensions is concerned. If we lacked the power to suspend those persons from judicial offices not then held, the suspensions in those cases exceeded our power. However, nobody has made that claim, then or now.

 In contending that the case is moot, respondent implies that it is impossible to suspend, retire or remove a person from a position he does not hold. We agree. This is entirely consistent with the issuance of a conditional suspension that will become operative, if ever, only in the future against a person who does not presently occupy judicial office.

 For a concise description of these purposes, see the statement of the American Bar Association quoted in fn 10, infra.

 The relationship of a judge to the judiciary and the judiciary to the public are expressed in the words of Canon 1 of our Code of Judicial Conduct:
"A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence op the Judiciary
“An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should himself observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. A judge should always be aware that the judicial system is for the benefit of the litigant and the public, not the judiciary. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further those objectives.”

 In the Matter of Del Rio, 400 Mich 665, 725; 256 NW2d 727 (1977).

 See In re Inquiry Relating to District Judge Harold L Hammond, *226224 Kan 745; 585 P2d 1066 (1978) (public censure of judge who had resigned due to physical disabilities).
Moreover, censure of a former judge would not preclude on double jeopardy grounds additional discipline, such as removal, based on the same misconduct were that person to regain judicial office in the future. As we noted in In the Matter of Mikesell, 396 Mich 517, 528; 243 NW2d 86 (1976), commission proceedings are not criminal in nature:
" 'The proceedings of the Judicial Board are investigatory and advisory and are not binding upon the Supreme Court. No determination of criminal guilt is made, but merely a determination of the Judicial Board’s view of the conformity of the subject of investigation to the state constitutional standards for judicial office. Similarly, the resulting Order of the Supreme Court does not operate as a sanction for criminal guilt but as a judgment on judicial ñtness. At most, the proceedings of the Judicial Board could be characterized as quasi-judicial administrative hearings, and the Order of the Supreme Court as a judicial disciplinary order.’ ” (Emphasis in original) (quoting Keiser v Bell, 332 F Supp 608, 616 [ED Pa, 1971]).
Thus, we held in Ransford v Graham, 374 Mich 104, 109; 131 NW2d 201 (1964), that the refusal of the Michigan House of Representatives to vote for the judge’s removal did not preclude, on double jeopardy grounds, our subsequent suspension of him because "[n]either the proceedings in this Court nor those in the legislature were criminal”. Accordingly, constitutional provisions, insofar as they are designed to afford rights to criminal defendants, are inapposite to commission proceedings. See generally 53 ALR3d 882, § 12[a], pp 912-914. Compare fn 13, infra.

 To the same effect is the following statement of the Supreme Court of North Carolina:
"[I]t would indeed be a travesty if a judge could avoid the full consequences of his misconduct by resigning from office after removal proceedings had been brought against him.” In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge No 53, Linwood T Peoples, 296 NC 109, 150-151; 250 SE2d 890, 914 (1978).
Moreover, Justice Levin concedes as much:
“We recognize that the Judicial Tenure Commission’s ability to recommend discipline based on prior misconduct in office might be embarrassed if judges were able to shield themselves from inquiry by resigning and could wait until evidence of misdeeds has faded with time, and then regain and hold judicial office with impunity.” Justice Levin’s opinion, fn 15.
This recognition leads my brother to qualify the ban against continuing proceedings after a judge leaves office:
"There might * * * be situations where it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the Judicial Tenure Commission to proceed against an ex-judge to the point of preserving testimony.” Id.
We are not convinced that such a limitation on the commission’s range of action is prudent.

 Brief in Support of Dissenting [Commission] Opinion and Minority Recommendation, p 2.

 Considerations affecting the decision to continue proceedings against a judge after he has left office may include, but are not limited to, the likelihood of re-election to judicial office, the gravity of the misconduct, and the importance of official reprobation to public confidence and trust in the integrity of the Michigan judicial system. In this regard, those charged with the task of supervising the conduct of our judges must always bear in mind the functions of judicial discipline:
"[T]he major purpose of judicial discipline is not to punish judges, but to protect the public, preserve the integrity of the judicial process, maintain public confidence in the judiciary, and create a greater awareness of proper judicial behavior on the part of judges themselves.” ABA Standards Relating to Judicial Discipline and Disability Retirement (Tentative Draft, 1977, approved by ABA House of Delegates, February, 1978), p 2 (emphasis added).
It might be argued that permitting proceedings to continue against a judge who leaves office during the pendency of proceedings would require us to permit the commission to begin proceedings against a judge after he leaves office. This reasoning, however, is not cogent. To forbid the filing of a complaint after a judge has left office is simply to give effect to considerations underlying our various statutes of limitations. It would also tend to ensure that the commission is not acting pursuant to motives unrelated to its proper mission. Finally, a distinction related to the purpose of commission proceedings can be drawn between filing a complaint against a sitting judge and a former judge: a well-founded complaint may encourage the sitting judge, who is guilty of misconduct, to resign or not run for re-election. These pressures, which are germane to the essential purpose of the commission — keeping unfit judges off the bench — have no relevance to a former judge.

 "Suspension” is defined as "[a]n ad interim stoppage or arrest of official power and pay; —not synonymous with 'removal’ which terminates wholly the incumbency of the office or employment”. Black’s Law Dictionary (4th rev ed), p 1616.
"Retirement” refers to divestiture of office for reasons pertaining to physical or mental infirmity, rather than misconduct, and is not in issue here. ABA Standards Relating to Judicial Discipline and Disability Retirement, supra, Commentary to Standard No. 6.7, pp 52-53; Standard Nos. 8.1-8.8, pp 60-63.
Neither “suspension” nor "removal” connotes a permanent disqualification from office.

 In contrast, we may utilize the power conferred by § 30 to remove a judge. Aside from § 30, the power to remove a judge resides in our Governor and Legislature. Const 1963, art 6, § 25 (for "reasonable cause” short of grounds for impeachment); art 11, § 7 (impeachment of civil officers, including judges "for corrupt conduct in office or for crimes or misdemeanors”).

 This, of course, is not to say that we are empowered to act arbitrarily or capriciously. A determination of judicial unfitness must always be accompanied by the safeguards of procedural due process. See, e.g., In re Graham, 366 Mich 268, 275; 114 NW2d 333 (1962); In re Heideman, 387 Mich 630, 632; 198 NW2d 291 (1972); In the Matter of Del Rio, 400 Mich 665, 682-689; 256 NW2d 727 (1977). See generally GCR 1963, 930, 932.
Most cases of judicial discipline are handled within the provisions of § 30. The question of this Court’s power under § 4 to discipline judges, however, is independent of that fact.
In In the Matter of Del Rio, 400 Mich 665, 679; 256 NW2d 727 (1977), the commission recommended that Judge Del Rio "be enjoined from holding judicial office in the future”. In a separate concurring opinion, I stated that I "would enjoin him from serving in any state judicial office in the future”. Del Rio, p 727 (emphasis added). As we reaffirmed in that case, "the right of the people of a judicial circuit to the service of a judge whom they have elected is subject to express and distinct limitations and qualifications provided for by the Constitution and statutes”. 400 Mich 685, fn 6 (emphasis added) (construing In re Huff, 352 Mich 402; 91 NW2d 613 [1958]).

 See fn 11, supra.

 "[The] opportunity to be re-elected * * * is much too intangible an interest to invoke the protection of due process.” Gruenburg v Kavanagh, 413 F Supp 1132, 1136-1137 (ED Mich, 1976), quoted in In the Matter of Del Rio, 400 Mich 665, 685; 256 NW2d 727 (1977).

 Justice Levin’s opinion, p 259.

 "Of primary importance are two basic rules of constitutional construction.
"1. Every statement in a state constitution must be interpreted in the light of the whole document.
“2. Because fundamental constitutional principles are of equal *233dignity, none must be so construed as to nullify or substantially impair another.” People v Blachura, 390 Mich 326, 333; 212 NW2d 182 (1973).

 This is consistent with the fact that neither of our coordinate branches of government is constitutionally authorized to permanently enjoin a person from holding judicial office. Even in the case of the most extreme civil sanction that can be inflicted upon a judge— impeachment — the penalty “shall not extend further than removal from office”. Const 1963, art 11, § 7.

 Aside from deciding that our power of superintending control, Const 1963, art 6, § 4, does not enable us to issue a permanent injunction against holding judicial office, we reserve the question whether and to what extent we could properly exercise the power in this case.