By DAMIEN FISHER, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD – After a year of New Hampshire Supreme Court scandals, it’s time to rein in judges, according to Rep. Susan DeRoy (R-New Durham.)
“New Hampshire has always stood for something simple and powerful. Live free or die,” DeRoy said. “That means no branch of government gets a free pass. No unchecked power.”
DeRoy testified before members of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday asking them to back her proposal to amend the state constitution and give the legislature the ability to investigate the judicial branch.
Judges in New Hampshire do not face any real accountability for their misconduct, DeRoy said. The legislature already has the authority to impeach a judge accused of crimes or other misconduct, but that’s a rare occurrence. Her proposal would allow a standing legislative commission to investigate alleged misconduct and provide transparent oversight over the whole judicial branch.
But Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel for the Judicial Branch, said DeRoy’s proposed constitutional amendment was redundant. The legislature already has the authority to investigate misconduct and vote to impeach judges under the current constitution.
“And so essentially looking at what this bill is seeking to do, what is it seeking to do that isn’t already currently in a process?” Warner asked.
Most instances of judicial misconduct are currently investigated by the Judicial Conduct Committee, overseen by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The committee is made up of 11 members, six of whom are members of the public not connected to the judicial branch. The JCC investigates misconduct, holds hearings, gathers evidence, and imposes discipline on judges who have been found in violation. The JCC also already has the ability to work with the legislature to go further and impeach judges if deemed appropriate.
But court watchdog advocate Dana Albrecht testified that changes are needed given the urgent problems within the judicial branch.
“What we have today is nothing less than a judicial crisis,” Albrecht said.
Albrecht submitted his written testimony here: https://justicemacdonald.com/2026_02_04_House_Judiciary/2025_01_04_Judiciary_Testimony_Part2.pdf
Within the last year two members of the Supreme Court have come under scrutiny for alleged ethical lapses or criminal conduct, he said. Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi pleaded no contest in October to a misdemeanor in connection to the criminal case against her husband, former Ports Director Geno Marconi. Hantz Marconi was able to get her job on the Court back after she paid a fine.
Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald has come under fire for the handling of a personnel matter within the judicial branch. Last year, Diane Martin was laid off from her job as the administrative director at the Judicial Branch, then hired two days later by the Supreme Court as the General Counsel to the Office of Bar Admissions. During her brief unemployment, Martin cashed out her accrued employment benefits, including unused vacation and sick time, valued at more than $50,000. According to witness statements, MacDonald laid the groundwork for Martin’s transition between jobs.
The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office reviewed the matter, but deemed that nothing inappropriate occurred.
However, Albrecht said in his written testimony there are numerous inconsistencies in the witness statements in both the Diane Martin matter, and the Hantz Marconi case, which requires further investigation. But, because the JCC is under the Supreme Court, that investigation is not happening, Albrecht said.
“What’s the remedy to investigate this? The Judicial Conduct Committee doesn’t do it. They’re under the direct authority of the Supreme Court,” he said. “You have the fox guarding the henhouse.”
Further compromising and complicating the landscape is MacDonald’s pending divorce litigation, Albrecht said. MacDonald’s divorce has been in court for the last five years without a resolution. Throughout the divorce litigation, MacDonald essentially is the supervisor for the judges sitting on his case.
At least one, Family Court Judge David Burns, suggested in 2023 that an out of state judge be assigned in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict. The case remains in New Hampshire, however, and under MacDonald’s ultimate authority.