On April 30, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued this 7-page unanimous opinion in Proctor v Daniels, 10-384. Willard Proctor had been a judge of the Circuit Court in Little Rock, but he had been removed by the State Supreme Court last year for misconduct.
Proctor tried to run for his old seat this year, but was not permitted to get on the ballot. Then he filed to be a write-in candidate, but he was not permitted to do that either. The Arkansas Supreme Court decision strikes down the law that says “any judge removed from office by the Supreme Court cannot be appointed or elected thereafter to serve as a judge.” The Court said this adds to the state constitutional qualifications to be a judge, and statutes can’t do that.
On the other hand, the Court said that Proctor still can’t run for his old office, because the Supreme Court already “removed” him; they didn’t just “suspend” him. The Court says at the end of the decision that lower court judges who were removed by the State Supreme Court may never again get that old job back. Thus, even though the law that dictates this outcome is unconstitutional, in the end it doesn’t make any practical difference. The decision seems eccentric.
The procedure under which Proctor had been removed was added as an amendment to the constitution, so it would seem to be similar to the (dis)qualifications for serving in Congress added by the 14th Amendment.
The court seems to be saying that the legislature is not competent to determine that “removal from office” is a disqualification, but that the court can.
Willard Proctor is the combination of two characters names from my play “The Crucible” John Willard and John Proctor. This play has a trial in it.