A controversial constitutional amendment set for the December 7th ballot could fundamentally alter Louisiana’s system of judicial oversight, drawing sharp criticism from those who know the system best. See La. Act No. 405 (2024).
Constitutional Amendment No. 1 proposes sweeping changes to Louisiana’s Judiciary Commission, the independent body charged with investigating complaints against judges. The amendment would add five political appointees to the current nine-member commission, allow the Supreme Court to bypass the commission’s recommendations in disciplinary actions, and remove constitutional protections for confidentiality in commission proceedings.
In a widely circulated email to the legal community, Steve Scheckman, who served as the long-time Special Counsel for the Judiciary Commission and has spent the last 14 years providing advice and counsel to judges on judicial ethics matters, issued a stark warning. “This is nothing short of a political power grab,” Scheckman writes. “Don’t be fooled by the misleading innocuous language that will appear on your ballot. If Constitutional Amendment No. 1 passes, the five new members will be political appointees with no required qualifications who will be appointed by the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, and the Governor. If this occurs, the independence of the Judiciary Commission will be destroyed.”
Former commission members Robin Giarrusso and Ed Walters have added their voices to the opposition. In a guest column published in The Times-Picayune and NOLA.com on November 22, 2024, they draw from their four years of service to emphasize that the current balance of three judges, three lawyers, and three private citizens has been crucial to maintaining independence. “The current commission is balanced and impartial, and it has never, in our experience, made decisions based on politics,” they assert.
Supporters of Amendment 1 argue that the Judiciary Commission takes too long to process complaints, but Giarrusso and Walters’ Times-Picayune column presents compelling evidence to the contrary. Of the more than 900 judicial officers in Louisiana, only three cases had been pending for more than 18 months as of March. “Case processing time is not a problem of inefficiency but of ensuring fairness and justice,” they explained, noting that thorough investigations require careful attention to gather clear and convincing evidence.
According to Scheckman’s email, the proposed expansion from nine to fourteen members could actually create new problems. “Adding five new Commission members will not only bloat the Commission’s budget for no reason, but it will also cause further delays and complicate the scheduling of meetings and the review of cases,” he notes. He emphasizes that “the only way to expedite the handling of cases before the Judiciary Commission is to increase the number of attorneys and investigators.”
In their Times-Picayune column, Giarrusso and Walters highlight two dangerous aspects of Amendment 1 that would work together to compromise judicial independence. First, the amendment would remove constitutional protections that keep commission proceedings confidential. Second, it would add political appointees to the commission. “By allowing political appointments to the judiciary commission, the legislative and executive branches attempt to influence and control the judiciary, thereby undermining its independence,” they warn. The combination of political appointees having access to sensitive judicial investigations, while also removing constitutional confidentiality protections, creates a concerning potential for political pressure and interference in judicial matters.
The amendment would also grant the Supreme Court unprecedented power to initiate investigations and impose sanctions without the commission’s recommendation, effectively bypassing the independent oversight body entirely. This concentration of power, combined with political appointments, threatens the fundamental principle of separation of powers.
“The truth is Constitutional Amendment No. 1 does nothing to address the issue of the timeliness of resolving complaints before the Judiciary Commission. Any claims it does so are disingenuous,” Scheckman states firmly in his email. His assessment, backed by decades of experience with the commission, carries particular weight.
In light of these expert testimonials, it becomes clear that Constitutional Amendment No. 1 represents a dangerous shift away from independent judicial oversight. The proposed changes would not only fail to address the claimed inefficiencies but would introduce political influence into a system that has successfully maintained its independence for years.
As we prepare to cast their ballots on December 7th, the message from those of us who know the system best is unequivocal: this amendment is not reform – it’s a threat to judicial independence. The choice is between maintaining a proven, independent oversight system and opening the door to political interference in judicial accountability. For the sake of Louisiana’s judicial integrity, voters should heed these warnings and reject Constitutional Amendment No. 1.
