Skip to content

Kentucky’s Judicial Conduct Commission doesn’t have authority to permanently remove judges

1 min read
Views:

Kentucky’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday the Judicial Conduct Commission — the only entity authorized to take disciplinary actions against sitting judges — does not have the authority to permanently remove them from office.

The ruling stems from a case involving former 42nd Judicial Circuit Court Judge Jamie Jameson, who was removed from office in 2022 — just days before the election for the office overseeing Marshall and Calloway counties, which Jameson lost to Andrea Moore.

Jameson faced seven misconduct charges, one of which included using his position to pressure WKMS’s former station manager into not pursuing a story about him. Following a four-day hearing, the JCC found Jameson guilty on all seven charges, and unanimously voted to have him permanently removed from office. Jameson then appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court.

While the Commonwealth’s Constitution grants the Judicial Conduct Commission the authority to retire, suspend or remove a judge, the Supreme Court ruled that the commission cannot permanently block a judge from holding an elected office. That power, the court said, belongs solely to the state legislature through its impeachment process.

“The permanent removal of a state official elected by the people must be the result of actions taken by a body of representatives also elected by the people: our legislature,” the opinion states.

After the commission found Jameson guilty, the Supreme Court dismissed two of the seven misconduct charges against Jameson, ruling that the Judicial Conduct Commission did not provide “clear and convincing evidence” to prove those allegations. The two dismissed charges accused Jameson of using his office to pressure people to donate to his political campaign, and attempting to obstruct justice by allegedly attempting to interfere with the commission’s investigation.

However, the Supreme Court did decide that Jameson’s removal from office — for the term he was serving at the time — was an appropriate sanction. It ruled that there was “clear and convincing” evidence that Jameson committed “numerous, intentional, and varied acts of misconduct.”

--30--

Written by Hannah Saad. Cross-posted from the Hoptown Chronicle.

Comments



Print Friendly and PDF

Guest Author

Articles by outside authors. See the article for the author and contact information.

Latest

Clicky