Removal by address: Difference between revisions
m →References: cmt |
++ |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
== Criticism and reform efforts == | == Criticism and reform efforts == | ||
=== 1820 Constitutional Convention === | === 1820 Constitutional Convention === | ||
During the [[Constitutional Convention of 1820]], some delegates proposed a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote of both houses for removal by address. The proposal was rejected by | During the [[Constitutional Convention of 1820]], some delegates proposed a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote of both houses for removal by address. Future Governor [[Levi Lincoln Jr.]], among others, successfully argued against the change, pointing out that there were no obvious problems with judicial independence under the current system. The proposal was rejected by the convention, with the final vote being 105{{endash}}210.<ref name="froth"/>{{rp|217}}<ref name="grinnell">{{cite book |last=Grinnell |first=Frank Washburn |authorlink= |title= The Constitutional History of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts From the Revolution to 1813|url=https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102669467 |accessdate=July 12, 2025 |year=1917 |publisher=Massachusetts Bar Association |location=Boston |isbn= }}</ref>{{rp|514}} | ||
Another amendment stipulated that subjects of address receive a fair hearing before legislative action and that a public reason for removal be given. This amendment was adopted by the legislature, and it was bundled with an amendment limiting legislative power to request advisory opinions from the [[Supreme Judicial Court]]. The bundled amendment was rejected by voters at the subsequent ratification election.<ref name="froth"/> | Another amendment stipulated that subjects of address receive a fair hearing before legislative action and that a public reason for removal be given. This amendment was adopted by the legislature, and it was bundled with an amendment limiting legislative power to request advisory opinions from the [[Supreme Judicial Court]]. The bundled amendment was rejected by voters at the subsequent ratification election.<ref name="froth"/>{{rp|218}} | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 19:51, 12 July 2025
Removal by address is a process by which the Legislature, Governor, and Governor's Council may remove state judges from office.
The Massachusetts Constitution states that "judicial officers...shall hold their offices during good behavior...provided nevertheless, the governor, with consent of the council, may remove them upon the address of both houses of the legislature."[1] In other words, if the Senate and House of Representatives both request that a judge be removed from office, the Governor can remove the judge with the approval of the Governor's Council.
Unlike with impeachment, no reason is required for removals by address. Although legislative hearings are traditionally held during consideration of bills of address, there is no formal requirement that a person subject to removal receive a hearing.[2]
List of uses
Criticism and reform efforts
1820 Constitutional Convention
During the Constitutional Convention of 1820, some delegates proposed a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote of both houses for removal by address. Future Governor Levi Lincoln Jr., among others, successfully argued against the change, pointing out that there were no obvious problems with judicial independence under the current system. The proposal was rejected by the convention, with the final vote being 105–210.[2][3]
Another amendment stipulated that subjects of address receive a fair hearing before legislative action and that a public reason for removal be given. This amendment was adopted by the legislature, and it was bundled with an amendment limiting legislative power to request advisory opinions from the Supreme Judicial Court. The bundled amendment was rejected by voters at the subsequent ratification election.[2]
References
- Kominers, Paul (December 2024). "Judge Day's Case: A Historical Account of Commonwealth v. Harriman". Massachusetts Law Review 105 (2): 39–47. https://massbar.org/docs/default-source/publications-document-library/massachusetts-law-review/2024/mlr-v105-n2.pdf.
- Nugent, John T. (1979). "Removal of Judges by Legislative Action". Journal of Legislation (Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame Law School) 6 (1): 140–152. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol6/iss1/12.
- Onello, Harriet Holzman (1979). "The Massachusetts Bill of Address: Due Process Considerations of Judicial Removal". Suffolk University Law Review (Suffolk University Law School) 13 (5): 1319–1385. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/sufflr13&i=1415.
- Black, Henry Campbell (July 1918). "Removal of Judges on Legislative Address". The Constitutional Review (National Association for Constitutional Government) 2 (3): 182–188. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tcr2&i=188.
- ↑ Massachusetts Constitution, Part the Second, Chapter III, Article I.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Frothingham, Louis A. (May 1914). "The Removal of Judges by Legislative Address in Massachusetts". The American Political Science Review (American Political Science Association) 8 (2): 216–221. doi:10.2307/1946231. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1946231.
- ↑ Grinnell, Frank Washburn (1917). The Constitutional History of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts From the Revolution to 1813. Boston: Massachusetts Bar Association. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102669467. Retrieved July 12, 2025.