A RESOLUTION asserting the constitutional authority of the General Assembly with respect to the impeachment power; suspending action on the Articles of Impeachment against Julie Muth Goodman, Circuit Judge for the 22nd Judicial Circuit; and expressing the will of the Senate that the Judicial Conduct Commission conduct public proceedings concerning serious allegations of misconduct in office by Judge Goodman and take appropriate action to sanction and reprimand her, upon a finding of good cause.
SR297 is a Senate resolution dealing with the impeachment proceedings against Circuit Judge Julie Muth Goodman of Kentucky’s 22nd Judicial Circuit. The resolution recites the constitutional basis for legislative impeachment power, recounts the House’s impeachment process, and describes the Senate’s receipt of the Articles of Impeachment. It also references a Kentucky Supreme Court opinion and order that purported to halt the impeachment proceedings, which the resolution characterizes as an improper intrusion on the General Assembly’s constitutional authority.
Rather than proceed immediately to judgment on the Articles of Impeachment, the resolution suspends Senate action in light of the Court’s disclosure that the Judicial Conduct Commission is already investigating Judge Goodman. It urges the Commission to hold open and public proceedings on the allegations of misconduct, including claims that she abused judicial power, disregarded binding precedent, violated statutes and court rules, and interfered with the roles of jurors, attorneys, and others in the court system. The resolution further asks the Commission to take appropriate disciplinary action, including public sanction, reprimand, or removal if good cause is found.
The bill also directs the Legislative Research Commission to collect and preserve impeachment-related materials after adjournment and transmit copies to the Judicial Conduct Commission, while keeping originals available for future legislative reference. It expressly states that suspending the impeachment does not amount to a decision on the merits, a relinquishment of the House’s impeachment power, or an acquittal under Kentucky law.
The impact of SR297 is primarily procedural and institutional: it does not change substantive criminal or judicial conduct statutes, but it asserts the Senate’s view of the General Assembly’s constitutional impeachment authority and preserves the impeachment record for future use. It also reinforces the role of the Judicial Conduct Commission as a parallel forum for investigating and disciplining judicial misconduct, potentially affecting how allegations against judges are handled going forward.
Sentiment around the resolution appears strongly supportive within the Senate, but also defensive and confrontational toward the Kentucky Supreme Court. The bill passed by voice vote, and the underlying House impeachment resolution had already passed with bipartisan support, suggesting broad legislative concern about the judge’s conduct. The main point of contention is separation of powers: supporters frame the resolution as protecting legislative impeachment authority, while the resolution itself criticizes the judiciary for attempting to block or limit impeachment and for asserting exclusive control over non-criminal judicial misconduct.
SR297 does not amend the Kentucky Revised Statutes, but it affects the constitutional and procedural handling of judicial impeachment and discipline. It suspends Senate impeachment proceedings against Judge Goodman while preserving the House’s Articles of Impeachment and directing the Legislative Research Commission to transmit and retain impeachment records. The resolution also urges the Judicial Conduct Commission to conduct public proceedings and, if warranted, impose sanctions, reprimand, or removal, thereby emphasizing the Commission’s disciplinary role alongside the General Assembly’s impeachment power.
The overall sentiment is serious and adversarial, with the Senate treating the allegations against Judge Goodman as significant enough to warrant impeachment-related action while also pausing in deference to the Judicial Conduct Commission’s investigation. Legislative language shows strong frustration with the Kentucky Supreme Court’s intervention and a clear desire to defend the General Assembly’s constitutional prerogatives. The bill’s adoption by voice vote indicates little visible opposition at the final stage, and the broader context suggests bipartisan concern about judicial misconduct.
The central contention is constitutional: whether the General Assembly or the courts control impeachment proceedings and whether judicial misconduct short of criminal conduct can be addressed through impeachment rather than only through the Judicial Conduct Commission. The resolution explicitly rejects the Supreme Court’s attempt to halt the impeachment and argues that impeachment is a legislative function and a political question. Another point of contention is the factual basis for the allegations against Judge Goodman, including claims of abuse of authority and interference with court participants; the resolution urges public proceedings, while the judge’s defense and the Court’s intervention suggest ongoing dispute over process and jurisdiction.