In re Impeachment of Senator TopNotchCoffee 2023 SDSC 1
In re Impeachment of Senator TopNotchCoffee 2023 SDSC 1
| Alternate citation | In re Impeachment of Senator TopNotchCoffee 2023 SDSC I |
|---|---|
| Date of judgment | 12th January 2023 |
| Justices | Chief Justice halfcat Justice Literal Justice Mythrows |
| Held | The attempted impeachment of Senator TopNotchCoffee was conducted unlawfully. |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent | The right of officials being impeached to defend themselves in front of the Senate imposes a duty on the Senate to ensure that they are reasonably given a chance to exercise this right prior to a vote of impeachment being conducted. 6 Senators do not have the authority to conduct votes on their own volition. 12 |
==
MAJORITY OPINION by Chief Justice halfcat
(with Justices Literal and Mythrows agreeing)
Introduction
[1]. The petitioner is seeking a judicial review into the Senate’s attempted impeachment of the then sitting Senator TopNotchCoffee. The petitioner claims that this was in violation of Article 1 §5.3 of the Constitution as Senator TopNotchCoffee was not given the chance to defend themselves in front of the Senate.
Summary of the petition
[2]. On the 19th of December 2022, Senator Iaccp motioned to impeach Senator TopNotchCoffee, whereafter a vote was immediately held on the proposed impeachment. Only after Senator TopNotchCoffee informed Senator Iaccp of the right for officials being impeached to defend themselves in front of the Senate did they announce that Senator TopNotchCoffee may defend themselves. At this point two Senators had already voted in favour of the impeachment. The petitioner argues that this was in breach of the aforementioned right and that the attempted impeachment should be nullified.
[3]. The petitioner points out that as there was no legislation restricting the right at the time of impeachment the right should not be circumvented in any circumstance. Additionally, they argue that it is implied the defence would take place prior to a vote as they claim the purpose of the right would be to influence the Senate’s votes, something which would be impossible if conducted after the vote has already taken place.
Summary of the response
[4]. The respondent does not immediately disagree with the petitioner; they concur that if the petitioner’s version of the events were true the Senate would indeed have violated the Constitution. However, instead they argue that the Senate never voted on any impeachment at all, they only voted to begin impeachment proceedings and therefore did not violate any laws. The respondent ends with asking that the Court either recommends the Senate to clarify what the right entails, or that the Court do so itself.
Issue 1 — What does the right to defend oneself in front of the Senate entail?
[5]. There exists three parts to this case that will be dealt with separately. Firstly is the matter primarily discussed by the petitioner and agreed upon by the respondent. Article 1 §5.3 of the Constitution states the following:
§5.3. The government official being impeached has the right to defend themselves in front of the Senate, this may be detailed and reasonably restricted in legislation.
[6]. The Court finds that the Constitution grants an unambiguous right for officials being impeached to defend themselves in front of the Senate and agrees with the petitioner that the Senate has a duty to ensure the official being impeached reasonably is given chance to defend themselves prior to a vote being conducted, as any “defence” after the fact can not be characterised as a defence at all. However, the Court will not further restrict the Senate from determining their own procedures as long as they are in line with the aforementioned Constitutional right, and by extension the duty imposed on the Senate. If this right is violated again, the Supreme Court may take further action.
Issue 2 — Did the attempted impeachment of Senator TopNotchCoffee violate this right?
[7]. If officials being impeached have a right to defend themselves in front of the Senate and Senator TopNotchCoffee was not given the opportunity to exercise this right, then was the impeachment unconstitutional? The respondent claims that this was not so, as the vote held was to begin impeachment proceedings, not to impeach Senator TopNotchCoffee.
[8]. The Court agrees with the respondent on principle, namely that it would be constitutional to conduct the defence after a vote to begin impeachment proceedings. It would in fact be expected as there would be no reason for an official to defend themselves if they aren’t in the process of being impeached. However, the Court disagrees with the respondent regarding the specific case at hand. It is overwhelmingly clear that the vote held was to impeach, not to begin impeachment proceedings. Firstly, the message simply states that it is a motion to impeach. Secondly, Senator Iaccp states that if the motion were to pass it would go to a public referendum and later informs the Supervisor that such a referendum is needed when the vote passes. This would only be true if the vote was to impeach.
[9]. However, the Court still finds that the Senate did not take any unconstitutional actions due to a technicality.
Issue 3 — Was the vote conducted correctly in the first place?
[10]. An issue that no party raised is whether the vote was even conducted correctly in the first place, because if it wasn’t then the vote would have been invalid and the arguments about any circumvented defence or motions to begin proceedings would be immaterial.
[11]. Article 3 §3 of the Constitution states the following:
§3. The Speaker of the Senate shall have the authority to control the legislative calendar, including the timing of legislation, confirmation, and impeachment votes.
[12]. As Senator Iaccp was not Speaker at the time of the vote, nor possessed any other office to give them this power, they did not have the authority to hold the vote to impeach. Therefore the vote was invalid and the Senate had no duty to give Senator TopNotchCoffee the opportunity to defend themselves in front of the Senate, and as such the Senate never acted in violation of the Constitution.
[13]. Additionally, the Improved Senate Procedures Act in effect at the time required multiple steps be completed prior to an impeachment vote which were ignored by the Senate. This also means that the vote, as it was earlier established that it was in fact a vote to impeach, was conducted unlawfully.
Conclusion and clarification
[14]. The vote to impeach was conducted incorrectly. Senator Iaccp acted wrongly in motioning to impeach without first motioning to begin impeachment proceedings as required by the Improved Senate Procedures Act and completing the other required steps, in holding the vote despite not being Speaker of the Senate, and in subsequently incorrectly informing the Supervisor that a referendum was needed.
[15]. If the vote had been conducted correctly, namely by the Speaker of the Senate and after following the required steps in the Improved Senate Procedures Act, then the Senate would have been in violation of the Constitution which imposes a duty on the Senate to reasonably give officials being impeached a chance to defend themselves. This opportunity must be given prior to a final vote on the impeachment.
Verdict
[16]. The attempted impeachment of Senator TopNotchCoffee was unlawful and shall be rendered null and void.
[17]. The Court expects the Senate to follow the law in comparable matters in the future.
