A bitter dispute between a crusading, reformist judge and Idaho’s judicial establishment is shining light on a little-noticed quirk: Idaho is the only state where, by law, the same person who chairs the council that disciplines judges presides over the Supreme Court’s review of that council’s actions. “This is the organization whose job it is to ensure that judges do the right thing,” said District Judge John Bradbury, who faces possible removal from his elected judgeship over a residency dispute in a case now pending before the Supreme Court. “I just think if there’s a dispute between the fox and the chicken, the fox shouldn’t be one of the judges.”

Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Daniel Eismann, who both chairs the Idaho Judicial Council and presided over the high court when it heard attorneys’ arguments for both the council and Bradbury, said, “I would personally prefer it not to be set up that way." Last week, he recused himself from Bradbury's case, but not because of the dual-role question. You can read my full story here in today's Sunday Spokesman-Review, along with my sidebar here on Bradbury's claim that he's being targeted for his reformist stance, and an additional sidebar here on judicial discipline.

Click the "continue reading" link below to read more on this story.

Here are a few items from this package this didn't make the paper for lack of space:

According to the American Judicature Society, nearly every state gives its Supreme Court final say over disciplining judges, but just two other states, Indiana and Nebraska, have their chief justice chair their judicial discipline council. In Indiana, the justice doesn't participate when the council votes on formal discipline charges. In Nebraska, the chief justice doesn't sit on the Supreme Court when it reviews discipline cases that come up from the commission. Cynthia Grey, director of the society's Center for Judicial Ethics, said Idaho's system is "an unusual situation."

Judicial discipline cases in Idaho remain confidential unless they go to the high court, which only two have ever done; sometimes, judges choose to resign and that's the end of it. In 34 states, including Washington, they become public long before that point - when the judicial council files formal charges. In the previous case that went all the way to Idaho's high court, Idaho Judicial Council v. Becker in 1992, the Idaho Judicial Council recommended removing a southern Idaho judge from office for alcohol abuse, drunkenness on the bench and drunk driving. The Supreme Court decided instead to suspend the judge without pay for three months, with extensive requirements to refrain from alcohol and undergo treatment. Then-Chief Justice Robert Bakes recused himself from the high court's proceeding.

The offense for which 2nd District Judge John Bradbury faces possible removal from office - improper residency - also is part of a complaint against a judge in Michigan right now, whose case is pending before that state's Supreme Court. However, that case goes much further - the Michigan judge is accused of moving out of his legislative district prior to his last re-election, engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior toward female court employees, and lying under oath. The state's judicial council is recommending he be removed from office.

Also this: Idaho law designates where judges in each multi-county judicial district must reside. In Bradbury's five-county district, he's the judge assigned to live in Idaho County, while one must live in Latah County and two in Nez Perce County. When elected, he bought a home in Grangeville in Idaho County, moved his homeowner's exemption there and registered to vote there. But he kept his Lewiston home, and stays at whichever location is closest to his court dates - which typically put him in Grangeville only one day a week. Sworn statements filed in federal court show that the first three judges to hold the seat Bradbury now holds didn't live full-time in Idaho County; the first two rented an apartment in Grangeville to stay in when they were in town, while the third simply commuted. Subsequent judges were from Grangeville.