HARRISBURG — When it comes to removing embattled state Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane from office, lawmakers made it clear last week they are not about to go against her in a vacuum.
A special Senate committee tied any future vote by that chamber to remove Kane from office to whatever future action the state Supreme Court takes regarding her suspended law license.
House lawmakers pursuing the impeachment of Kane said that chamber needs to be ready to move in case the Senate doesn’t act.
Both chambers are wrestling with the issue of how and whether to move decisively in ousting Kane from office in the wake of criminal charges against her and the suspension of her law license by the Supreme Court.
The court suspended Kane’s license last fall after she was charged with obstruction, conspiracy and perjury in connection with leaking secret grand jury material to a reporter. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges and awaits trial.
Lawmakers have only a handful of precedents to go on — the impeachment of a Supreme Court justice in 1994, expulsion of a state senator in 1975 and an unsuccessful effort to remove two state fiscal officers in 1891.
In the first two cases, action by the courts was the catalyst to impeach and convict Justice Rolf Larsen and to expel Sen. Frank Mazzei.
Lawmakers are wary about going after even a politically damaged elected attorney general while the legal process plays out, said Christopher Borick, Ph.D., a Throop native and political science professor at Muhlenberg College, Allentown.
“There is a degree of caution about being the first to act,” he said. “You are on the spot in terms of public reaction.”
The lawmakers’ task is made more complicated by the vague language in the state Constitution regarding removing public officials from office.
A civil officer can be impeached for “misbehavior.” The Senate can vote to remove certain civil officials in concert with the governor for “reasonable cause.”
The two chambers are not only pursuing different methods under the constitution to oust Kane. The scope of their efforts differ.
The Senate Committee on Special Address focused on the narrow question of whether Kane can remain as the state’s top law enforcement officer with a suspended law license.
The committee voted 4-3 along party lines, with the Republicans in the majority, to recommend a Senate removal vote if and when the court acts to continue her license suspension. The committee made no recommendation on how it thinks that Senate vote should go. Kane recently petitioned to court to reinstate her law license.
The committee’s job was to collect testimony and evidence to present to the senators, chairman Sen. John Gordner, R-27, Berwick, said.
Gordner said he personally favors Kane’s removal.
“It’s pretty clear having a law license is part of being attorney general,” Sen. Gene Yaw, R-23, Williamsport, a committee member, said.
Capitol activist Gene Stilp, an advocate for ousting Kane, said the Senate hedged its bets and showed a lack of backbone.
“I believe they (Senate) should act independently of the judiciary,” he said. “There is enough reasonable cause here to move forward.”
Stilp said he doesn’t think the court will act on Kane’s petition.
Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee took a different approach when it approved a broad-brush resolution to investigate Kane’s conduct and determine whether she’s liable for impeachment.
The resolution sponsor, Rep. Garth Everett, R-84, Muncy, left the scope of the investigation being done by a subcommittee open. Rep. Tarah Toohil, R-116, Butler Township, is on that subcommittee.
“I’d like for them to have the latitude to go where they need to go,” Everett said.
The subcommittee would make recommendations which could then form the basis of articles of impeachment.
The House should have an impeachment process in place in case the Senate effort falters, Everett said.