ANNAPOLIS – A leading opponent of gay marriage called Tuesday for the removal from the bench of the Baltimore judge who ruled that the state law barring same-sex marriage was unconstitutional
“It’s clear to the public that the court has violated their trust,” said Delegate Donald H. Dwyer Jr., R – Anne Arundel, said on the House floor. “It is for this reason, ladies and gentlemen, that I charge Judge M. Brooke Murdock with misbehavior in office, willful neglect of duty and incompetence.”
About 20 delegates walked out of the House while Dwyer made his address, including Delegate Neil F. Quinter, D – Howard, who said Dwyer had no grounds to call for Murdock’s removal.
“It’s just an example of sheer, pure demagoguery,” Quinter said. “He’s entitled to his own opinion on the issue . . . but to employ this sort of procedure is highly inappropriate.”
Dwyer said delegates who walked out in the middle of his address were acting disrespectfully.
“I think it’s unfortunate that they’re not willing to represent the people who sent them here, even to the point of showing the courtesy of listening to the address,” Dwyer said. “I believe the public will hold them accountable in November for neglecting their duty.”
Murdock could not be reached for comment, but Sally Rankin, a spokeswoman for the Maryland Judiciary did release a statement criticizing Dwyer’s efforts to remove Murdock from the bench.
“Removal of judges from office . . . is a remedy limited to addressing ‘incompetency, wilful neglect of duty, misbehavior in office, or any other crime,’ not to address disagreement with a particular decision or decisions,” the statement said, quoting the state constitution.
“This action would weaken our court system and interfere with its ability to provide access to justice for all,” Rankin’s statement said.
The House Judiciary Committee will take up the matter Thursday, though Dwyer declined to speculate as to what chance it had of passing.
“I don’t believe in chance. It’s my responsibility to do what I think’s right on behalf of the citizens of this state, and I’ve done my duty,” he said.
Quinter said he thought the chances of Murdock being removed from office were “less than zero.”
Only one judge has been removed from the bench in Maryland history. Judge Henry Stump was removed prior to the Civil War over accusations that he was drunk in court, according to Dr. Edward Papenfuse, a state archivist.
Unlike Murdock’s proposed removal, Stump was removed because of “his inappropriate behavior on the bench and did not have to do with any particular decision that he made,” Papenfuse said.
If the committee were to support Murdock’s removal, the measure would have to be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate before the governor could remove Murdock.
Dwyer said a judge can be removed for any reason under Maryland law, though there is question about what threshold is required for removal.
Kathryn Rowe, an assistant attorney general, said a judge would not have to meet the high standards associated with impeachment to be removed, but there would have to be a valid reason.
“[Dwyer] still needs cause, he just doesn’t need high crimes and misdemeanors,” Rowe said.
Because only one judge has been removed from the bench, there is very little precedent to clarify the guidelines set forth in the state constitution.
Janet S. Eveleth, a spokeswoman for the Maryland State Bar Association, called Dwyer’s address inappropriate and unfortunate. “It reflects a misunderstanding of our system of law,” Eveleth said, “There is no basis whatsoever to impeach Judge Murdock for simply making a ruling.”