
    In re Former Judge Larry D. JEFFERSON.
    No. 00-O-2593.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 11, 2000.
    Paul Henry Kidd, Monroe, Counsel for Larry D. Jefferson.
    Steven Scheckman, Special Counsel, Mary Whitney, Asst. Special Counsel.
   I,PER CURIAM

On September 7, 2000, this court issued a rule to show cause to Larry D. Jefferson, ordering him to show cause why he should not be ordered to withdraw his candidacy for election to the City Court of Monroe, and in the event he is ordered to withdraw and fails to comply, why this Court should not thereafter render judgment disqualifying him as a candidate for the office of Judge of the City Court of Monroe and ordering the removal of his name from the election ballot, and/or institute contempt proceedings for his non-compliance. Mr. Jefferson, through counsel, filed exceptions and motions to dismiss in response to the rule. The rule was heard on September 11, 2000. Mr. Jefferson appeared through his counsel, Paul Henry Kidd.

Having reviewed Mr. Jefferson’s exceptions and motions and finding no merit to these filings, it is ordered that all exceptions filed by Mr. Jefferson are overruled and all motions are denied.

Considering that in In re: Jefferson, 99-1313 (La.1/19/00), 753 So.2d 181, reh’g denied, 99-1313 (La.2/18/00), he was removed from office during the current term for which the present election was called, and considering Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 26, as adopted February 3, 1997 and pre-cleared by the Justice Department on August 14, 2000, and this court’s authority to make rules to enforce its disciplinary authority over judges pursuant to La. Const. Art. V, § 25(C), and after hearing argument from Mr. Jefferson’s counsel, it is the judgment of this court that Mr. Jefferson be and hereby is ordered to withdraw as a candidate for Judge, Division “A,” Monroe City Court by 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 12, 2000. In the event Mr. Jefferson fails to withdraw by this time, the Secretary of State is ordered to remove his name from the ballot. Any rehearing of this order shall be filed no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 12, 2000.

LEMMON, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

JOHNSON, J., concurs and will assign reasons.

h LEMMON, J.,

Concurring.

With regard to the constitutionality of La. S.Ct.R. 23, § 26, the Supreme Court of Louisiana has the power and authority to suspend a judge from office without pay for misconduct, or to impose the ultimate penalty of removal from office. La. Const, art. V, § 25. Inherent in the power to suspend or remove a judge is the power to specify the terms and conditions of the penalty of suspension or removal. The court undoubtedly may suspend a judge for the remainder of the term the judge is serving at the time of the order of suspension, and an order of removal (the harsher penalty) certainly removes the judge for the remainder of the term he or she is then serving.

Because former Judge Jefferson was removed from office during the current term for which the present election was called, he cannot serve as a judge during this term, irrespective of the validity of Rule 23, Section 26.

With regards to the separation of powers issue, the Supreme Court has general supervisory power and authority over all Louisiana courts, as well as the power to establish rules governing the operation of the courts and the judiciary. La. Const, art. V, § 5A.

| ¡While the Legislature has the general power to establish qualifications for all elective offices, the Supreme Court has the power to provide additional requirements regarding candidates for judicial office who have previously been removed from judicial office by the Court in judicial disciplinary proceedings.

h JOHNSON, J.,

Concurring.

In In re: Judge Larry Jefferson, 99-1313 (La. 1/19/00), 753 So.2d 181, I voted to suspend Mr. Jefferson for two years rather than remove him from public office. In my view, his conduct was less egregious and far less damaging to the judicial process than we have seen in other cases.

Compare In re: Judge Preston Aucoin, 99-0-3084 (La. 8/31/00), 767 So.2d 30, where the Judge received only a public censure after the evidence showed a pattern and practice of requiring defendants in criminal non-support cases to proceed to trial immediately after arraignment, often without counsel and without an opportunity to prepare a defense.

We must discipline Judges who refuse to follow direct orders and who lack the proper judicial temperament and demeanor. However, we should reserve our severest discipline, removal from office, for those Judges who refuse to recognize the constitutional rights of citizens who appear before them. 
      
      . The Court exercises original jurisdiction in judicial disciplinary proceedings to determine whether there was proved misconduct and what penalty should be imposed, including the terms and conditions of the penalty. It stands to reason that the Court, in the exercise of original jurisdiction, can specify the terms and conditions of the penalty to be imposed. Moreover, the Court has the power to issue all needful orders in aid of its jurisdiction. La. Const, art. V, § 2.
     