January 18, 2012
Rep. Hebl Testifies in Favor of Judicial Reform
Joint Legislative Council Study Committee on Judicial Recusal and Discipline Chair Rep. Hebl testifies in favor of two bills that promote judicial transparency and accountability
MADISON – Representative Gary Hebl (D- Sun Prairie) testified in front of the Joint Legislative Council Committee today in favor of two pieces of legislation that were recommended for introduction by the Legislative Council Special Committee on Judicial Discipline and Recusal, which Rep. Hebl chaired.
In November 2010, the committee voted to recommend two proposals for introduction by the Joint Legislative Council:
- The first recommendation is LRB-1326/1. Under current law, when a judge grants a motion to disqualify himself or herself, the judge must file, in writing, the reasons for the disqualification. The committee decided to extend this requirement to circumstances in which a judge denies a motion to disqualify the judge. Thus, the bill requires a judge to file, in writing, the reasons for denying a motion to disqualify. Under the bill, the statement must be filed within 60 days after the action is concluded.
- The second recommendation is LRB-1327/1, which amends the State Constitution to require the Supreme Court to temporarily assign the most senior Court of Appeals judge to aid in the judicial discipline proceedings in the Supreme Court in order to provide an odd number of justices. Under the State Constitution, judges are subject to discipline by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The committee discussed the potential for equally divided decisions in the Supreme Court in cases of judicial discipline, especially in cases of discipline involving a Supreme Court justice. As a result, the committee voted to recommend LRB-1327/1.
“Several prominent cases in recent years have demonstrated the need for reforming Wisconsin’s judicial discipline and recusal standards,” said Rep. Hebl. “These reforms are necessary to protect the due process and equal protection rights of litigants. Reforms that promote transparency and accountability are also necessary to regain the public’s trust in the impartiality and fairness of our state’s justice system, which has been greatly undermined in recent years. These two modest proposals are necessary and important first steps the Legislature needs to take in order to improve transparency and accountability in Wisconsin’s judicial system.”
A copy of Rep. Hebl’s testimony is attached below.
###
REMARKS OF REPRESENTATIVE HEBL, CHAIR,
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND RECUSAL,
TO THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
January 18, 2012
The Special Committee on Judicial Discipline and Recusal met four times from August through November 2010, with the assignment to: (1) review the current method by which justices and judges are disciplined; (2) examine alternative methods of judicial discipline; and (3) recommend a method by which justices and judges should be disciplined. The Special Committee was also directed to review the current system of judicial recusal.
The committee reviewed the current systems of judicial discipline and judicial recusal and discussed changes to those systems. The committee heard testimony from several individuals, including four of the justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and also held a public hearing on judicial discipline and recusal.
In November 2010, the committee voted to recommend two modest proposals for introduction by the Joint Legislative Council. The first recommendation is LRB-1326/1. Under current law, when a judge grants a motion to disqualify himself or herself, the judge must file, in writing, the reasons for the disqualification. The committee decided to extend this requirement to circumstances in which a judge denies a motion to disqualify the judge. Thus, the bill requires a judge to file, in writing, the reasons for denying a motion to disqualify. Under the bill, the statement must be filed within 60 days after the action is concluded.
The purpose of this proposal is to increase transparency in the recusal process and lend credibility to a judge’s denial of a disqualification motion. Judges should be able to articulate legitimate reasons to litigants and the public regarding why the judge believes her or his impartiality is not in question when a party to a case has raised such a concern.
The committee’s second recommendation is LRB-1327/1. Under the State Constitution, judges are subject to discipline by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The committee discussed the potential for equally divided decisions in the Supreme Court in cases of judicial discipline, especially in cases of discipline involving a Supreme Court justice. As a result, the committee voted to recommend LRB-1327/1.
This joint resolution amends the State Constitution to require the Supreme Court to temporarily assign the most senior Court of Appeals judge to aid in the judicial discipline proceedings in the Supreme Court in order to provide an odd number of justices. Currently, the State Constitution prohibits temporary appointments of other judges to the Supreme Court.
This constitutional amendment would help ensure that a majority decision can be reached when the state Supreme Court is required to determine appropriate discipline or action after the judicial commission has found probable cause of misconduct or permanent disability of a judge. This provision is necessary because in some judicial discipline cases, a state Supreme Court justice may have to recuse himself or herself due to a conflict of interest, which can lead to an even number of justices and a deadlocked court. Such a scenario occurred recently when Justice Gableman was before the court after he was accused of violating the prohibition against judicial candidates making false statements about their opponents’ records and the court deadlocked 3-3 on whether such a violation occurred.
Several prominent cases in recent years have demonstrated the need for reforming Wisconsin’s judicial discipline and recusal standards. These reforms are necessary to protect the due process and equal protection rights of litigants. Reforms that promote transparency and accountability are also necessary to regain the public’s trust in the impartiality and fairness of our state justice system, which has been greatly undermined in recent years.
While modest, these two proposals are important first steps in favor of transparency and accountability. As the current legislative session is quickly drawing to a close, I respectfully request that the committee please act quickly to ensure that these proposals are introduced as legislation so that there is adequate time to fully consider them before the end of the 2011-2012 legislative session.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have. With me today are Jessica Karls-Ruplinger and Don Salm, of the Legislative Council, who staffed the committee. Thank you for hearing my comments today
###