CHARLESTON – Chief Justice Margaret Workman says she thinks she is the victim of a political witch hunt.
She also says she has done nothing to warrant being impeached and possibly removed from the state Supreme Court.
“I don’t have one blemish on my record of integrity and good conduct,” Workman said Sept. 28 on MetroNews’ “Talkline” radio program with host Hoppy Kercheval. “I can’t help but believe this is a political ‘get our own people in there’ kind of effort when they won’t even tell me what I’m accused of.”
Workman, whose impeachment trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 15, said she understands why people are upset about the excessive Supreme Court spending. But she says she wasn’t singled out for anything.
Workman is named in three of the 14 articles of impeachment. One (Article 14) alleges maladministration against her, Justice Beth Walker, retired Justice Robin Jean Davis and suspended Justice Allen Loughry. Workman also is named in two other articles about overpayment of senior status judges.
“Every day, I look at all the things in the media and social media and comments made by members of the Legislature, and I feel like I am being lumped in with other people who did wrong things and I didn’t do any wrongful conduct,” Workman told Kercheval. “I’m not saying I’m perfect. I’m not saying I haven’t made mistakes. But I didn’t do the things that the impeachment allegations are about, as far as that catch-all maladministration Article 14.
“All five of us are being clumped together, and I can’t even find out from the House (of Delegates) what I’m being accused of. …
“I would accept responsibility for anything I have done personally, and I would accept responsibility if I did not support good policy.”
Workman also said she didn’t know of any of the conduct alleged against Loughry and retired Justice Menis Ketchum in the federal charges against them.
“I had no idea they were doing it, or you could bet your bottom dollar I’d be raising objection,” Workman told Kercheval.
As for the issue of overpayment of senior status judges, Workman said the use of those retired judges are necessary to keep the court system running efficiently. She said the Chief Justice is required to provide access to the courts to citizens, and that would outweigh a statute saying what those senior status judges can make in a year.
“Quite honestly, until this year, I was unaware of the statute,” she said on “Talkline.” “When a statute conflicts with a provision of the Constitution, the Constitution is going to have to prevail. The Constitution says it’s the responsibility of the judicial system to keep the courts open.”
Workman has filed a legal challenge with the state Supreme Court about how the House handled the impeachment proceedings and requested a delay of the impending impeachment trial in the state Senate. She also has asked the state Senate to dismiss the articles of impeachment and to delay her trial.
Lawyers for the state Senate say Workman’s attempt to halt her impeachment trial undermines the authority of the legislative branch.
“This court must deny petitioner’s request for a stay because the petition is an illegal and unconstitutional attempt to usurp authority that has been exclusively delegated to the West Virginia House of Delegates and West Virginia Senate by the Constitution of West Virginia,” the Senate response states. “If this court exercises jurisdiction over the petition, it will provoke a constitutional crisis by effectively eliminating the Legislature’s only check over the courts.”
The Senate says impeachment is a political issue, not a legal one.
“As is the case with the United States Constitution, and most state constitutions, the issue of impeachment under the Constitution of West Virginia is textually and demonstrably committed to one political department — the West Virginia Legislature,’ the response states. “By requesting a stay of the impeachment proceedings currently pending before the West Virginia Senate, petitioner seeks to short-circuit the constitutionally prescribed process for the removal of public officers.”
* * *
In other Supreme Court news:
Davis also has filed a motion to continue her impeachment trial until after the Nov. 6 election. She says her scheduled Oct. 29 trial is too close to the election and that politics could play a part in the outcome.
“The fact that the impeachment trial is scheduled immediately prior to the November election heightens the likelihood that politics, rather than the law, will influence the outcome of her trial," her motion, filed Sept. 28, states. “Stated differently, human nature being what it is, there is a great risk that Senators (who for purposes of this trial are serving as jurors) will be influenced by their own self-interest in being re-elected and allow those re-election considerations to enter into their decision on the outcome of the trial instead of making a decision solely on the merits and evidence presented.”
Davis's motion also says half of the state Senate would be busy campaigning the week before the election.
“Requiring them to be present at Respondent Davis’s impeachment trial would undoubtedly interfere with that campaigning and cause additional stress to the members in terms of dividing their time and attention," the motion states.
On Sept. 26, Davis filed a federal lawsuit claiming the House of Delegates had no legal basis for impeaching her or any of the other Justices.
Davis, who resigned in August the same day impeachment proceedings began in the House of Delegates, named Gov. Jim Justice, the delegates who voted for her impeachment, the state Senators who voted to move ahead with the impeachment despite her resignation and the clerks of the House of Delegates and state Senate.
"What is more, the facts cited purportedly to support impeachment do not remotely rise to the level of impeachable conduct," the complaint states. "But the House was not interested in investigating whether the facts warranted impeachment. Instead, it used these charges as a pretext to remove all four Justices on West Virginia’s highest court so that the Governor could replace the popularly elected Justices with Republican men and create a 'conservative court' for years to come. ...
"The defendants must be enjoined from taking further action that degrades Justice Davis’s rights under the Constitutions of both the state of West Virginia and the United States. ...
“In sum, the Articles of Impeachment returned against Justice Davis reflect no factually or legally sufficient grounds for impeachment."
In her federal complaint, Davis contends the move to impeach all four remaining members of the court shows a conspiracy among the governor and lawmakers. Ketchum resigned in July before impeachment proceedings began.
“The Articles of Impeachment do not allege any conspiracy among all of the Justices to engage in any impeachable offense — far from it,” Davis's complaint states. “The decision of the House of Delegates to wipe out the entire remaining Supreme Court of Appeals makes clear that the impeachment process was not an effort to uncover misfeasance, but instead a power grab designed to remove Justices with whom the Delegates disagreed and to remake the court in the Delegates’ and the governor’s desired image.”
The 40-page lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in Charleston. Davis is represented by James Cole, Tacy Flint and John K. Adams of Sidley Austin in Washington as well as Robert Allen and Pamela Deem of Kay Casto & Chaney in Charleston.
Davis retired, but impeachment could keep her from running for office again or possibly collecting her state pension.
* * *
U.S. Rep. Evan Jenkins said he is resigning from the House of Representatives Sept. 30 so he can take his temporary seat on the state Supreme Court.
His court swearing-in ceremony is scheduled for Oct. 1.
“Country roads are calling me home,” Jenkins, a Republican, said during a speech Sept. 27 on the House floor. “My state is facing a crisis in our judicial system, and I believe back home is where I’m needed most to best serve the people of West Virginia.”
Jenkins was appointed to the court in August along with former House of Delegates Speaker Tim Armstead, also a Republican, by Gov. Jim Justice. They are temporarily replacing Davis and Ketchum on the bench, and both seek to serve the remainder of those terms on the Nov. 6 general election ballot.
Those appointments were challenged, but the state Supreme Court ruled Oct. 24 both men could serve and appear on the ballot. Armstead was sworn in Oct. 25. Jenkins’ House seat will remain vacant until the new term begins in January.
“We’re proud West Virginians, always working to make sure that the state we love is the very best it can be and taking care of one another when times are stuff,” Jenkins said in his floor speech. “In Congress, I’ve tried to use that Mountain State, can-do spirit to help West Virginians grow and prosper.
“I will not miss sleeping on a $99 cot each night these past four years in my office here in Washington, but I was never here in Washington to get settled in,” he said.
* * *
The state Senate is asking that Circuit Judge Ronald Wilson step down from his temporary Supreme Court role on Workman’s petition to end her impeachment proceedings so he can serve as a witness at the impeachment trial of Walker and, likely, Workman and the other justices facing removal.
Meanwhile, another motion has been filed asking for the state Senate subpoena for Wilson to show up as a witness Oct. 1 for Walker’s trial to be quashed.
“Your Honor is listed as a potential material witness in impeachment proceedings related to Petitioner’s claims and has been served with a subpoena to appear and testify in those proceedings,” lawyers for the state Senate wrote in its motion. “Furthermore, Your Honor could also be a witness in the impeachment proceedings against Petitioner. Accordingly, we respectfully request that Your Honor recuse himself from this matter.”
Wilson is being asked to testify because he also is chairman of the state Judicial Investigation Commission. The JIC motion to quash the subpoena says having Wilson testify would be inappropriate because the JIC already closed ethics complaints against Walker, Workman and Davis. It also named Loughry in a 32-count charge that led to the impeachment proceedings.
“Importantly, the request likely requires the disclosure of privileged or other protected matter to which no exception applies,” the JIC motion states.