Details are starting emerge about possible legislative changes to the judicial disciplinary process in Minnesota. As I noted yesterday a strike all amendment was being offered today to an existing bill (SB 2205) that as originally drafted would have let a newly reconstituted Board of Judicial Standards, made up of only legislators, open any prior complaint against any judge “for any reason.”

The amendment removes all language regarding changes to the Board, creation of a legislatively enacted Code of Judicial Conduct, etc.

Section 1 does broach the issue of reopening existing complaints. It amends existing statutes (490A.02 Subd. 4) to add a new paragraph that reads

(b) Upon receipt of a referral from the Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Ethics, the board shall reopen a matter previously disposed of by the board.

Section 2 creates a Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Ethics, made up of the House Ethics Committee and Senate Rules and Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct. A person who field a complaint with the Board and remained dissatisfied with the Board’s decision could send it on to the Joint Committee, which would then have several options:

1. they could determine the judge is “disabled, incompetent, has committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, or has otherwise violated the Code of Judicial Conduct or other law applicable to judicial administration or conduct” and refer the matter back to the Board
2. they could determine grounds for impeachment exist and recommend the House in fact impeach the judge
3. they could dismiss the complaint (though not explicit in the bill, the author stated this was an option at today’s hearing)

Joint committee meetings would be subject to the state’s open meetings law, but could be closed a majority vote of the Joint Committee at the preliminary stage only. If further proceedings were deemed warranted by the committee, the allegations or charges “must be open” unless:

• a judge’s health records, a judge’s medical conditions, or other information not deemed publicly accessible under existing state law (Chapter 13) are discussed
• non-publicly accessible information under the rules of the judicial branch is discussed
• non-publicly accessible information under some other law regarding public access to records is discussed

Nevertheless, a judge could insist on an open meeting at any point in time.

The bill, as amended, was immediately tabled.

I’ve mentioned that over the course of the last year, indeed the last several years, the Minnesota legislature has had a keen interest in the state’s judicial disciplinary board (the Board of Judicial Standards) and has indicated an interest in creating a statutory Code of Judicial Conduct (rather than letting the state supreme court do so).

In the Minnesota Senate this effort has taken the form of SB 2205, itself the companion bill to HB 1568 which was introduced last year. As I noted when HB 1568 was introduced, the bills:

1. Strips the Supreme Court of the power to suspend temporarily a judge during an investigation and transfers it to the Board exclusively.
2. Strips the Supreme Court of the power to “retire” permanently a judge and transfers it to the Board exclusively.
3. Allows the newly constituted Board to open any prior complaint against any judge “for any reason.”
4. Gives the Board the power to enforce a new Code of Judicial Conduct enacted by the legislature

A meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, to which SB 2205 was referred, is set for tomorrow March 23. Interestingly, a revision has been made to the agenda, indicating an as yet unreleased “delete everything amendment will be considered for discussion… No public testimony will be taken at this time. The bill as amended will be discussed and then laid on the table. No final vote will be considered.”

The meeting is to start 9:00 local time and may have video streaming here.