Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legal counsel flags constitutional hurdle in changing six‑year review interpretation
Summary
Committee legal advisor Eric cautioned that attempting to change the interpretation of the constitution’s six‑year review could provoke court challenges because prior practice and judicial views influenced the current reading; he urged further study rather than immediate legislative action.
Committee members asked whether the constitution’s six‑year review applies to the judicial seat or the individual occupying it. The Chair framed the question, noting uncertainty: "My layperson reading was that it's not spelled out, and I don't know." The committee sought legal clarity before pursuing any changes.
Eric, who the group asked to comment, cautioned that the historical interpretation flowed from discussions with judiciary officials and court administrators and that changing that reading could trigger judicial review. "If that were to come to court, then that the same body that already told you that they thought that was unconstitutional would be the one making your decision," Eric said, underscoring legal risk and recommending further conversation and research before any statutory or constitutional attempt to alter the process.
