Court Opinion

ID: 9729308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:31:33.987077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:56.760465
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Justice,
dissenting.
I join the dissent of Justice Keller.
I write separately because the Judicial Conduct Commission lacks standing to bring an original action in this Court.
William R. Woods may be proven to be ineligible to assume the office of district judge; however, the law has not been followed in challenging his eligibility to be a candidate for election to that office. A qualified voter in the 37th Judicial District is the proper person to bring a legal challenge.
There is a specific statute for review of the qualifications of a candidate. KRS 118.176 provides for the bona fide challenge of a candidate:
(2) The bona fides of any candidate seeking ... election in a ... general election may be questioned by any qualified voter entitled to vote for such candidate ... by summary proceedings consisting of a motion before the Circuit Court of the judicial circuit in which the candidate whose bona fides is questioned resides....
*479The Order of Removal by the Judicial Conduct Commission may well be interpreted by the Circuit Court to be an impediment preventing Woods’ being a candidate for judicial office prior to the expiration of the term for which he was elected, namely 2002.
Kentucky Constitution § 121 grants the Judicial Conduct Commission specific and limited powers to retire a judge for disability, suspend a judge without pay, or remove a judge for good cause. The Commission can go no further than removing a judge from office. The Judicial Conduct Commission lacks standing and authority to contest electoral eligibility. Woods has been removed from office and is no longer a judge. The Judicial Conduct Commission has no jurisdiction over his conduct or his participation in the current election. While William R. Woods is a candidate for judicial office, the Judicial Conduct Commission has jurisdiction only over any complaints about the ethics of his campaign conduct.
Woods has been removed from the Court of Justice. Kentucky Constitution § 110(2)(a) does not give the Supreme Court authority to govern Woods’ conduct at this time because he is not a member of the Court of Justice.
This Court would have authority under Kentucky Constitution § 110(2)(a) to examine Woods’ qualifications only if he is elected and seeks to assume the office of District Judge.
WINTERSHEIMER, J., joins in this dissent.