Impeachment of justices over amendments possible, GOP chief says

North Carolina Republican Party executive director Dallas Woodhouse says Republican lawmakers could vote to impeach judges or justices who decide to remove any constitutional amendments from the ballot this fall.

Republican lawmakers currently hold enough seats to follow through on the threat. Under Article 4, Section 4 of the state constitution, impeachment requires a majority vote in the House, which is 61. Republicans hold 75 House seats. In the Senate, which serves as the court for impeachment trials, conviction requires a two-thirds vote, which is 34 if all 50 senators are present. The GOP holds 35 seats.

Woodhouse noted the number of votes required in his comment Friday morning at a panel event hosted by the NC Free Enterprise Foundation. He later took to Facebook to explain his reasoning at more length.

Woodhouse argued that interference by the courts in the amendment process would violate the state constitution and disrupt the balance of power - ironically, the same arguments amendment opponents are making as they ask the courts to block two of the six amendments lawmakers want to put before the voters.

"I believe there will be a very visceral reaction from voters and our activists to having their right to vote on amendments blocked," Woodhouse wrote. "That reaction could be re-amending the Constitution, censure, adding positions to the court and/or impeachment."

"Nobody wants that," Woodhouse added, emphasizing that he had not discussed the option with any members of the legislature.

State Democratic Party chairman Wayne Goodwin was on stage with Woodhouse when he first made the comment.

"I was shocked. I could not believe what I’d heard," Goodwin told WRAL News. "This just further shows that Republicans – Republican legislative leaders in particular – will stop at nothing to preserve their power, whether it’s misleading voters on the ballot, or it’s by gerrymandering districts, or in this instance, intimidating members of the judicial branch."

Goodwin also said he doesn't believe the idea of impeaching justices originated with Woodhouse.

"Who has discussed this? Senator Berger? Speaker Moore? Other Republican leaders?" Goodwin asked. "This is about power politics. Apparently someone’s been discussing this if [Woodhouse]’s already talking further about packing the Supreme Court, even musing to a group publicly that this could very well be a response to a purported constitutional crisis."

Asked to comment, Moore's spokesman Joseph Kyzer stopped short of rejecting the idea outright. "Lawmakers understand that citizens are concerned about the possibility of an unprecedented court decision to block the people from deciding popular constitutional amendments for themselves, but House leaders have had no discussions about responding to such an egregious action outside of the judicial process.”

A spokesman for Senate Leader Phil Berger responded late Friday, "While we understand the concern that activist judges could stop the people from voting on constitutional amendments, there are no plans to impeach judges and the caucus has not discussed it."

Noted state constitutional law expert Gerry Cohen said lawmakers wouldn't have grounds to impeach justices over their decision on the amendment challenge.

"The North Carolina courts have been asked to construe the ballot language for at least two of the amendments against North Carolina law requiring a fair ballot, as well as other provisions of our state constitution. The six session laws that put the questions on the ballot specifically state the election shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 163A of the General Statutes which include the fair ballot statute," Cohen said in a statement.

"Courts in other states review constantly ballot language for compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements. That is neither malfeasance in office nor neglect of duty, the grounds for impeachment," Cohen said. "The General Assembly is free to return to Raleigh tomorrow and write new ballot language that is not misleading and deceptive. That would resolve the issue without threats of a kangaroo court."