CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Impeachment proceedings before the House Judiciary Committee may begin moving toward a conclusion.
“I think we’re getting close to the point where we need to sit down as a committee and discuss what we’ve learned, try to develop some of understanding of the standards of the Constitution, perhaps even adopt some definitions and decide if we’re ready to move forward with recommendations to the full House,” said committee Chairman John Shott, R-Mercer.
That’s the short view.
The broad view is, there’s still a lot to process as the Legislature considers whether to impeach one or more state Supreme Court justices.
The Judiciary Committee — guided by five impeachment managers — would first need to reach its own recommendations, which it might do in the next few weeks.
The full House of Delegates would then reconvene to hear the case laid out by the managers from the Judiciary Committee.
If the House would vote to impeach any justices, then the case would go to the state Senate for a trial.
The most recent federal trial date for Justice Allen Loughry is Oct. 2.
If impeachment and the federal trial wind up coinciding, it seems likely that impeachment would be put on the backburner.
House Judiciary Committee members have heard six days of testimony, including a full day from former Supreme Court administrator Steve Canterbury.
Testimony has focused on the court’s spending decisions on office renovations, working lunches and professional framing. More focused on use of state vehicles.
Some testimony focused on Justice Loughry’s decisions to take home state furniture, such as an antique desk associated with Capitol architect Cass Gilbert and a couch owned by a previous justice.
And more testimony has highlighted the work culture of the court, with multiple employees testifying they came to fear for their jobs.
The process kicked off a month ago when the House of Delegates voted to begin impeachment proceedings.
There will be no testimony this week as the committee’s staff goes over and organizes additional evidence. The committee is likely to return to testimony August 6, a Monday.
The evidence so far is establishing trends, said Delegate Rodney Miller, D-Boone, one of the five managers. The others are Judiciary Chairman Shott; vice chairman Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay; Delegate Ray Hollen, R-Wirt; and Delegate Andrew Byrd, D-Kanawha.
“You have to lay everything out in its totality and see the pattern as it’s kind of developing,” said Miller, who is a retired Boone County sheriff. “Are we talking about isolated incidents, or are we talking about a pattern of behavior that the committee has to examine?”
He said those patterns seem to be emerging.
“It seems to be,” Miller said. “With any investigation, you try to throw out any information you have, whether it’s good, bad or indifferent and then you draw from it whatever you want to draw from it. It seems there is a pattern beginning to develop, at least from what we’ve heard on the chamber floor.
“But at the same time you’re starting to see almost battle lines being drawn in here with questioning, which is a little bit disheartening, coming from my background that you have to throw out the best information you have and make a decision after that. It seems like we’re starting down a road of making decisions as we go.”
Chairman Shott said the committee needs to discuss not only Loughry, who faces 23 federal charges, but also the remaining justices — Margaret Workman, Robin Davis and Beth Walker. Justice Menis Ketchum announced his resignation earlier this month.
“I think we would want to at least discuss where we are with the other justices and whether we need some more information,” Shott said. “My preference as chairman would be to wait until we’re ready to go forward with recommendations with respect to all the justices.
He added, “I don’t think we’re far from that point.”
Once it’s time to reach conclusions, Shott said, the five managers would make a presentation for the full committee. Draft articles of impeachment would be made available.
“The full committee would discuss each and every one of them and determine whether, as a committee, we would move forward with those recommendations to the full House. Once we’ve concluded that process, the House would be called back into session,” Shott said.
“The managers would make the presentation of those articles that the committee approved, and then the House would vote.”
That presentation would be a summary, rather than calling back witnesses for testimony before the full House.
“We would just say as your committee here’s what we’ve done and here’s what we’ve developed, and we’ve concluded and reached this decision and we recommend this,” Shott said.
“There obviously would be questions from members of the House, but I don’t think we would be doing a full-scale type.”
Some time would be necessary to call the full House back.
“I think you could do it in a matter of a few days, but I don’t think you could do it overnight,” Shott said. “I would think it would be within a week at the longest.”
The Senate then, serving as a jury, would be called in. The Supreme Court would appoint a presiding officer. The managers from the House Judiciary Committee would present a case.
“We would need a little more time to get our witnesses together, to determine who we want to subpoena to be there live, and I suspect the Senate would allow those who are subject of the impeachment opportunity to get with counsel and prepare a defense,” Shott said.
“There’s no telling whether the attorney who represents any of those people who are subject to criminal charges would ask that be delayed until the criminal process is completed. I wouldn’t be surprised by that. Then the Senate would have to make the decision whether they want to allow that or just move forward.”
With all of the Supreme Court being considered for possible impeachment, another complication is who would preside over a Senate trial. The state Constitution specifies that role go to a justice.
“They’ve appointed someone in the interim to act for them,” Shott said, referring to Kanawha Circuit Judge Joanna Tabit, who was appointed to step in as temporary chief justice to deal with charges against Loughry by the Judicial Investigation Commission.
“I assume that’s how it would proceed. That person might be the presiding officer.”