GOP lawmakers want the Pa. Supreme Court to reconsider the case for impeaching Philly DA Larry Krasner

The Pennsylvania legislators who helped lead an effort to impeach Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner last year have asked the state Supreme Court to overturn a prior court ruling that had put the matter on indefinite hold.

In their new filing, Republican state representatives Timothy Bonner and Craig Williams, wrote that the Commonwealth Court was wrong when it essentially struck down the articles of impeachment filed against Krasner, a Democrat, as legally insufficient. In addition, the legislators, who accused Krasner of failing to fulfill his responsibilities, contend that some of the allegations they raised against the city’s reform-oriented prosecutor “arguably describe criminal conduct” by him or others in his office.

The filing cites Krasner’s handling of the murder case against former city police officer Ryan Pownall as one example. A city judge eventually tossed out that case, saying prosecutors had failed to provide a grand jury with proper legal instructions as the panel weighed whether to approve charges.

In their appeal, Bonner, of Mercer and Butler Counties, and Williams, of Delaware and Chester Counties, alleged that Krasner’s office had “deliberately abused grand jury and judicial processes” and “intentionally deprived Officer Pownall of his constitutional rights.” Such conduct, the legislators argued, not only meets the legal standard required for impeachment — known as “misbehavior in office” — they also said it could be considered a crime, such as official oppression.

» READ MORE: Pa. Commonwealth Court releases opinion calling impeachment articles against DA Larry Krasner legally insufficient

“I intend to prove that this was also a crime” if the case is brought before the state Senate, Williams said in an interview.

Jane Roh, a spokesperson for Krasner, called the appeal another improper attempt “to nullify the election of a local official over politics or policy disagreements.”

“The Commonwealth Court’s earlier review of House Republicans’ specious claims about DA Krasner was thorough,“ Roh said.“And there is no reason to doubt that a higher court will not arrive at a similarly fair judgement of House Republicans’ bad-faith, partisan attack on Philadelphia voters.”

The filing is unlikely to lead to any immediate movement in the long-stalled impeachment drive, which began last year. Even if the appeal succeeds, it’s unclear how, when, or even whether the legislative attempt to oust Krasner from office might resume.

The state House voted last fall to impeach Krasner over what GOP members called his failure to address the city’s gun violence crisis, his obstruction of a legislative committee, and his office’s performance in several court cases. The vote was largely along party lines, and came as Republicans were poised to lose their majority in the chamber for the first time in decades.

Krasner denied each of the accusations and sued in Commonwealth Court, saying the effort to remove him was unlawful. In December, the court sided with him on the heart of his challenge, ruling that the articles of impeachment appeared largely based on disagreements about how he was running his office, not evidence that he’d performed his duties with an improper or corrupt motive, the standard for impeachment and removal.

For any lawmaker to be removed, a simple majority in the state House must first approve articles of impeachment, and the state Senate must then conduct a trial and approve at least one of the articles by a two-thirds vote.

» READ MORE: What exactly is DA Larry Krasner being charged with? We explain each impeachment article.

In January, after the Commonwealth Court had issued its ruling siding with Krasner, the state Senate — which is controlled by Republicans — moved to postpone Krasner’s trial indefinitely.

It was not clear Wednesday how quickly the state Supreme Court might rule on the new appeal. And Bruce Ledewitz, a Duquesne University professor of state and federal constitutional law, said its decision could be limited in scope.

Ledewitz pointed out that the case has an unusual procedural history, because one of the Commonwealth Court judges — who initially backed much of Krasner’s position — later wrote that he’d changed his mind on some of the issues and that the legislature, not the courts, should decide them.

That change of heart could cause the high court to ask Commonwealth Court to first revisit the case before it decides to weigh in.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court may send it back to clarify what it is they should be reviewing before they even go forward,” Ledewitz said.

In addition, Ledewitz said, more potential confusion awaits in the legislature. At any Senate trial, he said, the House is expected to appoint the lawmakers who will serve as prosecutors. But the GOP no longer has a controlling majority in the House, and Democrats may not be eager to proceed with the exercise, he said — even if the courts say the impeachment articles are on sound legal footing.

“If the House doesn’t want to go forward, the Senate may very well say, ‘Well, there’s nothing for us to do,’ and the whole thing would sort of drift away,” Ledewitz said.

Jared Solomon, one of the Democrats appointed to present the case to the Senate, provided a glimpse of the potential discord, writing on Twitter that his GOP colleagues were “wasting time they should be spending finding real solutions to Philadelphia’s gun violence crisis,” and saying he would “fight to protect Pennsylvanians’ right to choose their elected representatives.”

In an interview, Solomon added: “There was no alleged corruption, there’s no crime, and this is about silencing voters.”

Williams disagreed with Ledewitz’s assessment about the potential future of the case, saying it’s his belief that the same lawmakers who were initially appointed to present it to the Senate would be retained if it moves forward to trial.

As for who might prosecute Krasner if his conduct was indeed viewed as criminal, Williams said he believed that responsibility would fall to the state’s Attorney General — a post he acknowledged he’s considering running for in the 2024 election cycle.

“Right now what I’m doing is communicating around the state, trying to find out what it is people are looking for in their attorney general,” Williams said. “The response so far has been fantastic. I think they are looking to me, but we have not yet pulled the trigger on that.”