New legislation targets judges’ secret investigations of misconduct

By Zach Parker 

The secretive process by which Louisiana judges are investigated or disciplined for misconduct could become more transparent by wresting away the state Supreme Court’s sole power to keep such matters confidential.

That’s the thrust of new legislation co-sponsored by a local lawmaker to make confidential documents and activities of the state Judiciary Commission subject to changes in state law.

Currently, the state Supreme Court sets all rules concerning the Judiciary Commission. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the Judiciary Commission screens its activities from the public.

House Bill 90 could change that. State Rep. Jerome “Zee” Zeringue, R-Houma, and Sen. Jay Morris, R-Monroe, pre-filed HB 90 for consideration during the Legislature’s regular session, which begins March 9.

“I feel like there are some people that do not have as much confidence in the judiciary as the judiciary ought to inspire,” Morris said. “Some of that comes from a lack of transparency. This is aimed at making judges, who are elected officials, as transparent as legislators are.”

Zeringue and Morris’ legislation represented a new approach aimed at making the Judiciary Commission’s discipline of judges more transparent.

During the 2019 regular legislative session, Zeringue proposed legislation that would have required the Judiciary Commission to disclose its records whenever the commission disciplined a judge for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As Zeringue noted, the legislation did not ask for the disclosure of every complaint, only those in which a judge was ultimately disciplined.

When Zeringue spoke to The Ouachita Citizen last year about the legislation, he noted the judiciary opposed the legislative measure, which ultimately failed.

“They were adamant. They were opposed to it,” he said. “These are elected officials. The public, quite frankly, has a right to know about the demeanor and judgment of these people. They should know if the Judiciary Commission has admonished or issued rulings.”

According to Zeringue and Morris, a common objection to the legislation last year claimed the state Constitution provided that only the judicial branch of government could change the confidentiality of the Judiciary Commission’s documents and proceedings.

“There was an argument put forth that it was unconstitutional,” Morris said. “This is just to alleviate any future concern that transparency measures would not be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is responsible for running the judicial branch. We’re not interested in running the judicial branch but want to be assured that their discipline matters are applied uniformly and are transparent.”

Morris said he knew of several judges who would welcome the change.

“It shouldn’t be terribly controversial,” Morris said. “A lot of judges have run on the issue of transparency, so I’m hopeful it will pass.”

Following the failure of Zeringue’s legislation last year and news reporting by The (Baton Rouge) Advocate about certain Judiciary Commission investigations, the Supreme Court issued a rule change in September 2019 seeking to make the Judiciary Commission more transparent. The change allowed for parties involved in a Judiciary Commission proceeding to publicly discuss the matter once the case was closed. The Judiciary Commission still requires anyone who submits a complaint against a judge to refrain from publicly discussing their complaint.

In an interview at the time with The Ouachita Citizen, Zeringue criticized the rule change for not doing much.

“It essentially grants or allows for limited, not unlimited, ability to discuss, so it doesn’t completely free a complainant to talk without certain conditions,” Zeringue said. “Everyone has a constitutional right to talk about it.”

HB 90 has been assigned to the House and Governmental Affairs Committee.

HB 90 is a constitutional amendment, meaning it cannot succeed without approval from two-thirds of the Legislature.

If approved by the Legislature, the constitutional amendment would be proposed to voters in the fall: “Do you support an amendment to provide that matters related to the confidentiality of documents and proceedings related to disciplinary actions against judges shall be provided by law rather than by rules of the state supreme court?”

Full Article & Source: 
New legislation targets judges’ secret investigations of misconduct