The Impeachment of Chief Justice David Brock

Judicial Independence and Civic Populism

By (author) John Cerullo, David C. Steelman

Publication date:

22 November 2017

Length of book:

324 pages

Publisher

Lexington Books

ISBN-13: 9781498565899

At this juncture in American history, some of our most hard-fought state-level political struggles involve control of state supreme courts. New Hampshire witnessed one of the most dramatic of these, culminating in the impeachment of Chief Justice David Brock in 2000, but the issues raised by the case are hardly confined to New Hampshire. They involved the proper nature and operation of judicial independence within a “populist” civic culture that had long assumed the primacy of the legislative branch, extolled its “citizen legislators” over insulated and professionalized elites, and entrusted those legislators to properly supervise the judiciary.

In the last few decades of the 20^th Century, New Hampshire’s judiciary had been substantially reconfigured: constitutional amendments and other measures endorsed by the national judicial-modernization movement had secured for it a much higher level of independence and internal unification than it had historically enjoyed. However, a bipartisan body of legislators remained committed to the principle of legislative supremacy inscribed in the state constitution of 1784. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a series of clashes over court administration, allegations of judicial corruption, and finally a bitter and protracted battle over Court decisions on educational funding. Chief Justice Brock publicly embodied the judicial branch's new status and assertiveness. When information came to light regarding some of his administrative actions on the high court, deepening antipathy toward him exploded into an impeachment crisis.

The struggle over Brock’s conduct raised significant questions about the meaning and proper practice of impeachment itself as a feature of democratic governance. When articles of impeachment were voted by the House of Representatives, the state Senate faced the difficult task of establishing trial protocols that would balance the political and juridical responsibilities devolved on them, simultaneously, by the state constitution. Having struck that balance, the trial they conducted would finally acquit Brock of all charges. Nevertheless, David Brock’s impeachment was a highly consequential ordeal that provided a needed catalyst for reforms intended to produce a productive recalibration of legislative-judicial relations.

1. The Historic New Hampshire Civic Culture

2. Twentieth-Century Reforms: Reconfiguring Only the Judiciary

3. Interbranch Relations at Century’s End

4. The Fairbanks Scandal and its Repercussions

5. Education Funding Litigation

6. Tipping Points

7. The House of Representatives Acts

8. Impeachment Proceedings in the Senate

9. Populist Efforts to Constrain Judicial Power

10. Restoring Interbranch Comity

Scholars have long studied executive-legislative relations in the US system of checks and balances and have paid little attention to the friction between legislatures and courts, yet these struggles are important. Legislators may be swept away by “civic populism,” loudly scapegoating the unpopular and embracing simplified panaceas to complex problems. Courts must protect the civil liberties of the unpopular and enforce limits on the public will. The authors view this perennial conflict through the lens of a case study. In 2000, the New Hampshire House of Representatives made David Brock only the seventh chief justice ever to be impeached. The charges included exercising improper influence over cases and perjury. But the real reasons ran deeper. Brock had presided over a series of unpopular decisions involving school finance. More generally, the branches disagreed over how independent courts should be. Conflicts over powers and limits always lurk below the surface of US politics and became public during Brock’s trial in the state senate. He was acquitted, but efforts to restore interbranch comity went on long afterward. The authors make this interesting story into a useful introduction to institutional state politics.

Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty.