The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a rather unique process that allows citizens to introduce bills in the legislature. As you might expect occasionally some citizen introduces a bill that is driven by personal dissatisfaction with how a judge ruled on a case. The bills in once sense can be a little comical.   Massachusetts SB 651  declares “The Courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are becoming worse in their disdain for the law and facts and in their support of an old boys network to protect favored attorneys whom the Judges might know or with whose law firm the Judges might wish to curry favor.” While the language and effect of the Massachusetts legislative proposal may be worth a chuckle what is happening in the State of Washington is no laughing matter.

Andrew Cohen, wrote a commentary for the Brennan Center which highlights a profound misunderstanding some legislators have about courts in our democracy.

“When the Supreme Court of Washington last week voided a controversial new state initiative that would have required a “super-majority” two-thirds legislative vote to pass any tax increase, the political reaction was predictable. Those who had supported the legislative measure were dismayed by the Court’s 6-3 ruling. Those who had opposed the new voting requirement, including Governor Jay Inslee, were relieved.

But what happened next was not predictable at all. On Wednesday, just six days after the contentious tax ruling, Republicans in the state senate introduced a bill that seeks to reduce the number of state Supreme Court justices from nine members to five. As if the concept of a “court unpacking plan” itself doesn’t intrude upon core principles of judicial independence, the language of the proposed measure makes it clear that the lawmakers who endorse it are using it to try to punish the Court for performing its requisite check upon political power. Here’s some of the text of the measure:

The state Constitution in Article IV, section 2 provides that there shall be five supreme court judges. For over one hundred years, the legislature has seen fit by statute to add four additional justices to that august body. Recent opinions by the Washington state supreme court have demonstrated that this legislative decision may be constitutionally problematic. First, the court has made it clear that the state legislature should be focused on prioritizing its budget according to constitutionally mandated duties, McCleary v. State, 173 Wn. 477, 269 P.3d 227 (2012). Given the nature of this mandate, the legislature finds that it can no longer justify the luxury of four additional supreme court justices.

In addition, the Washington state supreme court has indicated that the legislature may exceed its authority when it adds to the minimum requirements provided in the plain language of the state Constitution, League of Education Voters v. Gregoire, Case No. 87425-5 (2013)… With due deference to the doctrine of separation of powers and the Washington state supreme court as head of a coequal branch of government, the legislature finds that the state supreme court should return to the minimum number of judges provided for and enshrined in the state Constitution.”

The full commentary can be found here.