House committee advances constitutional amendment to let Legislature remove judges after Senate trial

The House and Governmental Affairs Committee advanced a constitutional amendment on Wednesday that would let the Legislature remove judges for cause after a joint legislative address and a Senate trial.

Senator Morris, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee that Senate Bill 123 is aimed at closing what he described as an accountability gap between the Judiciary Commission and legislative impeachment. "Without a process, the people are without a voice," he said, arguing the amendment would clarify the constitution and provide a "last‑resort" remedy in "the most egregious situations."

The measure drew emotional testimony from the family of Jacob Carter, who was murdered in New Orleans on Jan. 5, 2024. Anna Carter described a pattern of alleged supervision failures and said the offender on court‑ordered monitoring had "493 documented violations" while on supervised release and that the electronic‑monitoring contract had lapsed. "This is not a technological failure," she said. "That is a failure of oversight."

James Carter, Jacob’s father, told the committee: "If a judge is malfeasance incompetent or has gross misconduct, so this should be done about it," and called the lack of enforcement in his son’s case unacceptable. Tracy Carter urged legislators to "vote as a human being" and put politics aside.

Supporters said SB123 is narrow in purpose — to address demonstrable incompetence, malfeasance or gross misconduct by judges — and would impose a high threshold for removal. The bill as amended in committee requires a legislative address (a vote in both chambers, by a majority in the House and two‑thirds in the Senate as noted in committee discussion) and a subsequent trial by the full Senate.

Opponents warned the change could be politicized. Representative Carter asked whether the amendment would give the governor or dominant parties undue leverage to remove judges for unpopular rulings. Sarah Whittington of the ACLU said the bill contains drafting inconsistencies about the voting threshold and urged lawmakers to consider whether existing impeachment authority and judicial‑commission processes could be used or improved instead.

Members also spent substantial time on related operational problems raised by witnesses, including who oversees electronic‑monitoring contracts and whether state agencies such as the Office of Juvenile Justice were responsible for lapses that left monitoring inactive. Representative Newell urged the committee to consider remedies for the state offices that manage monitoring systems and for prosecutors whose charging decisions affect what judges can do.

After the testimony and debate, Chairman Beaulieu moved to report SB123 favorable as amended. The committee recorded 8 yeas and 5 nays and sent the measure forward for further consideration.

The committee also advanced several other items over the long morning, including Senate Bill 107 on election timing and Senate Bill 292 to modernize the Office of Inspector General; Senate Bill 224 (school‑board notice posting) was voluntarily deferred.

What’s next: SB123 was reported favorable as amended by the House and Governmental Affairs Committee and will be scheduled for further floor action. The committee vote was 8 yeas, 5 nays.

Sources: Testimony and remarks recorded in the House and Governmental Affairs Committee, April 29, 2026.