Maine judiciary clash: Lawmakers seek probe into judge ethics process
But the legislators' options appeared limited. Chief Justice Valerie Stanfill had previously testified that any legislative branch efforts to change the judicial branch's internal processes would violate the Maine Constitution's separation of powers clause.
Advertisement
'The judicial power vested in the Supreme Judicial Court includes the
exclusive
authority to regulate the conduct of judges of all the courts, including imposing discipline or misconduct,' Stanfill wrote in her testimony opposing the bill.
The legislative committee ultimately endorsed an amended version of the bill that would convene a group to study the court's process, despite being told by a judicial representative the legislature had no power to enact any changes the committee might recommend.
The conflict between the two branches of government stems from
Advertisement
A January 2024 ethics complaint from attorney Thomas Cox had argued that the justice's decision not to recuse herself from two cases involving Maine foreclosure law was unethical because of her previous work representing banks in foreclosure cases.
In one of those cases,
,
she argued for the bank, but the Court disagreed and decided against her, establishing a new precedent favorable to Maine homeowners. A few years later, a new court with Connors on the bench heard arguments in a similar case,
Pushard
.
Connors the justice had helped overturn a precedent created in a case that Connors the attorney had lost, sparking outrage from some lawmakers and members of the bar who thought she should have recused herself from the case.
Connors has defended her conduct, and pointed out that she sought advice from a judicial advisory panel, which advised her that recusal was not necessary.
The Committee for Judicial Conduct evaluated the complaint and made an initial recommendation that Connors should be disciplined in October, clarifying in a December filing that the discipline should consist of a public reprimand.
The power to mete out judicial discipline lies with the high court. Connors' case raised questions about what happens if a justice is the subject of a complaint, as well as about the potential conflict in tasking Supreme Court justices with deciding whether or not to discipline a colleague.
In January, the Maine Supreme Court drafted new rules for how to handle the unprecedented complaint against Connors. The draft rules put the authority for evaluating complaints against Supreme Court justices in the hands of a panel of lower court judges.
Advertisement
But the rules have not been implemented, the Connors matter has not been closed and no timeline has been given for when it could be resolved.
'It looks like this matter is being swept under the rug,' Cox testified to the judiciary committee.
Rep. Adam Lee (D-Auburn), who introduced the legislation, looked to neighboring Massachusetts for its system of evaluating allegations against Supreme Court Justices. Their process involves a similar process of creating a panel of lower court judges to evaluate misconduct by a member of the high court.
Last week, Lee and the legislative committee seemed poised to amend the bill to avoid the constitutional issues raised by Stanfill. Instead of implementing a new system, they discussed creating a legislative study group to examine Maine's process for disciplining judges and justices.
Judicial spokesperson Barbara Cardone reiterated her boss's position to the committee.
'What you're about to undertake is an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power,' Cardone said. 'I don't know how many of you understand how rare it is for the chief justice to speak out at a public hearing regarding the constitutionality of a bill. It's somewhat upsetting that that declaration, that advice, seems to go unheeded by members of this committee.'
Some lawmakers pushed back, asking how it could be unconstitutional to form a legislative study committee. Cardone argued it was pointless to form a committee to study an issue the legislature had no say in.
Advertisement
'If the legislature does not have that power, why would the legislature convene a study commission?' Cardone said. 'I guess that's the question that you all need to answer.'
Cardone noted that the Court had received public comment on the proposed rules, and would soon be issuing another draft of the rules based on the feedback it had received. But she could not say when those rules would be made public, or what changes they contained.
She said the rules would be different enough from the first draft that there would be another public comment period, and encouraged lawmakers to submit comments.
Rep. Lee was defiant as he made a motion to advance the amended bill calling for a study group.
'The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is indeed the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of things, but they do so through cases and controversies, not through testimony to the judiciary committee,' he said.
The committee voted to advance the bill by a margin of ten to three.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination.
There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. | Opinion This Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that the laws on discrimination apply to everybody equally. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Scripps News There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. There is just discrimination. It doesn't matter if someone is White or Black, straight or gay, male or female. It only matters if they've been discriminated against. On June 5, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision removing barriers for members of majority groups to file anti-discrimination suits. In this case, Marlean Ames, a straight woman, filed a suit against her employer, which she said denied a promotion in favor of a gay woman, and later demoted her in favor of a gay man filling her role. The news media covering this decision has widely referred to it as a 'reverse discrimination' case, but that shows their understanding of discrimination is wrong. The unanimous decision from the court in this case is correct and offers valuable lessons for how the left needs to rethink its group politics. Reverse discrimination isn't a thing. There is only discrimination. The ruling overturns a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that placed a heightened burden upon a plaintiff who is a member of a "majority group" in discrimination cases, requiring that the plaintiff shows 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Essentially, the lower court established different criteria for determining whether a single person had a valid discrimination case against an employer, compared with a person who was part of the majority. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional, sending the case back to a lower court. Opinion: Trump abandons his most impressive presidential legacy ‒ conservative judges Different rules based on different groups is precisely the kind of discrimination that American law prohibits. This is the spirit of all of American anti-discrimination law, including the relevant statute in this case, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents employment discrimination based on all sorts of characteristics. The only test in cases of discrimination should be if you prove you were discriminated against due to an immutable characteristic. If yes, you have a case. If not, you don't. There is no need to consider whether somebody is even a part of a minority group, or even how their discrimination plays into any sort of broader civil rights struggle. In this case, because the plaintiff was straight, the lower court added an additional burden for her to prove discrimination than if a gay person had filed an identical suit. Title VII provides far more detail on how one proves discrimination than my haphazard framework, but the spirit is the same in that there is no mention of one's group status being a determining factor. 'As a textual matter, Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,' writes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for the unanimous decision. This case is a promising step, but legal neutrality on characteristics is not a consensus In the decision at issue, the court reached consensus, with all nine justices signing on to Justice Jackson's opinion. While unanimous decisions are not uncommon, what is interesting about this case is that the liberal justices have signed on to an approach typically favored by conservatives. Justice Clarence Thomas has long advocated for constitutional colorblindness, and the reality is that American law treats all characteristics equally in its application of laws. Opinion: Vance is doing his best to help Trump tear down the Supreme Court This very issue divided the nation's highest court into its respective ideological leanings just two years ago, when Students for Fair Admissions won against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, resulting in affirmative action admissions practices being outlawed nationwide. In that very decision, Justice Jackson authored a fiery dissent against the colorblind approach of the majority opinion. While that case deals with race and this one deals with sexual orientation, any protected characteristic should be viewed the same. Decisions like these make Justice Jackson's jurisprudence all the more frustrating. The same principles that demand neutrality of the law in some areas are suddenly thrown out the window when it comes to affirmative action. I hope that the recent case is a genuine change of heart from Justice Jackson and the other liberal justices, but I fear that this case is just another puzzling inconsistency from the court's junior justice. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
High court ruling on reverse discrimination a no-brainer: Chuck Rocha
(NewsNation) — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected legal precedent that people in a majority group have a higher standard for proving discrimination. Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha agrees with the high court decision. 'Discrimination doesn't say, 'Oh, you have to be black,' or, 'You have to be a woman,' or, 'You have to be gay.' … Discrimination means you're treating me different,' he says on 'CUOMO.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear case threatening ballots mailed by Election Day, but received later
Jun. 2—The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a case against mail-in ballots in Illinois that may affect Washington. The case was brought by U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, R-Illinois, who sued the Illinois State Board of Elections in 2022. According to the New York Times, Bost and two federal electors argued that the state's law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted 14 days after an election violates statutes that created an Election Day. Spokane County Auditor Vicky Dalton said Washington state could be affected by the ruling in this case as ballots that are postmarked by Election Day or before are accepted 10, 14 and sometimes 21 days after Election Day, depending on the election. "It would disenfranchise voters," Dalton said. "It may have a pretty significant impact on our operations." Both federal courts that previously heard Bost's case, a federal district court in Illinois and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed it, agreeing that it lacked standing as Bost couldn't prove that the state laws directly injured him. Dalton said if the Supreme Court case agrees with Bost, the change could affect voter turnout. Oregon also has a universal vote-by-mail system, but requires mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day. In the 2024 general election, Washington had a voter turnout of around 79%. In Oregon's general election of the same year, about 75% of voters cast ballots. According to a 2024 study from the University of Chicago, universal vote-by-mail programs tend to increase voter turnout by around 2 to 4 percentage points. Dalton said that accepting the postmarked ballots later is helpful for both the voter and the election office as it gives them more time to process each ballot. "Lots of people wait until the last minute because we're humans and humans procrastinate to a great extent," Dalton said. Despite the increase in voter turnout, late mail-in ballots are often challenged in the aftermath of President Donald Trump's loss in the 2020 election where he called the later-arriving votes fraudulent. The Spokane County Republican Party last year adopted a platform calling for an end to mail-in voting as well as a return to hand-counting all ballots. State Reps. Mike Volz and Jenny Graham were among Republican legislators who backed a bill this year to bring back in-person voting and eliminate mail-in voting for non-absentee voters. The bill didn't receive a hearing. The Supreme Court case is on the docket for the next term beginning in October. If any changes happen in the months following, Dalton said the county's first steps would be to await orders from the Secretary of State Steve Hobbs.
