HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania’s highest court on Tuesday considered whether the Legislature can move forward with an impeachment trial of Philadelphia’s elected progressive prosecutor and whether the court or lawmakers must determine what qualifies as misconduct in office.
What the justices decide after oral arguments in Supreme Court chambers in Harrisburg will determine the future of efforts to remove District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, over claims that he should have prosecuted some minor crimes, his bail policies and the way he has run his office. .
Krasner was impeached by the state House in November 2022, a year after he was overwhelmingly re-elected to a second term, sending the case to the Senate for trial.
Judge Kevin Brobson, one of two Republicans on the bench Tuesday, questioned why the court should get involved at this point and suggested the Senate may not get the two-thirds majority needed to convict Krasner and end his sentence. dismiss office.
“Just as I would not want the General Assembly to stick its nose into a judicial proceeding, I am shy about whether it makes constitutional and jurisprudential sense for us to stick our nose into the impeachment process at this stage,” he said.
Judge Christine Donohue, one of four Democratic judges at the hearing, said she did not feel comfortable getting “into the weeds” of what the criminal offenses were, but indicated it should be up to the Supreme Court to to define misconduct in office, the reason for removal.
“It would go through the Senate as soon as we define what misconduct in office means, whatever that is, and then it would never come back because then there would be a definition of what misconduct in office is,” she said.
Another Democrat, Judge David Wecht, appeared to bristle at an argument from lawyers for the two Republican House members leading the impeachment trial that lawmakers should determine what constitutes misconduct.
“It’s not just like suing a ham sandwich,” Wecht said. He continued, “They may have completely different ham sandwiches in mind.”
“I mean, it’s what the House wakes up to today and what they have for breakfast, and then they bring impeachment. And then tomorrow the Senate wakes up and thinks about the opposite, which means any misconduct,” Wecht said.
Krasner has dismissed House Republicans’ claims as inconsistent with his policies, and a lower court issued a split ruling in the case.
A panel of lower judges rejected two of Krasner’s objections: that the chance for a trial died with the end of last year’s hearing and that as a local official he could not be removed by the General Assembly. But it was agreed that the articles of impeachment do not meet the definition of misconduct in office in the state constitution.
Krasner’s appeal seeks reconsideration of the Commonwealth Court’s decision.
The Republican representatives who spearheaded the impeachment proceedings and the GOP-controlled Senate leadership also appealed, arguing that impeachment proceedings fall outside the rules of the legislation and could continue into a new legislative session. As a prosecutor, Krasner receives state funding and that distinguishes him from purely local officials, they argued.
__
Brooke Schultz is a staff member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.