Court Opinion

ID: 9565236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:17:12.862103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:28.984181
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring in the result):
Although I concur with the result reached by the majority, I must also express considerable support for the concerns expressed by the dissent. A duly elected public official must not be subject to removal simply because his or her popularity wanes. Nor should an elected official’s minor pecadillos provide a basis for removal. Judicial removal of an elected official is a remedy that should be available only when that official’s conduct clearly establishes that he or she is unfit to hold office. In my view, the evidence here adequately establishes Mayor Brown’s unfitness to hold office.
The uncontradicted evidence established that the mayor was present when the dogs were killed, although he was aware that a complaint about them had been made only that morning. The evidence also established that killing the dogs was unlawful. But more importantly, testimony at trial established that the mayor lied and actively attempted to conceal his knowledge of the animals’ fate, as well as the evidence of his participation jn their destruction. Under these circumstances, there is ample record evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the mayor’s conduct constituted malfeasance.