House Speaker Julie McCluskie has the final say on whether to introduce a resolution sought by the House GOP caucus that would attempt to impeach Secretary of State Jena Griswold, Attorney General Phil Weiser said.  

McCluskie, in a statement to Colorado Politics, said she appreciates “the Attorney General’s analysis of what may constitute malfeasance in office and what precedents, statutes and rules exist that may guide our actions on this proposed resolution, and I am taking it under advisement.”

“I continue to consider what is in the best interests of the House and this institution, and I will communicate next steps to my caucus and the Minority as soon as I have decided how we will proceed,” she said. 

McCluskie added she believes the resolution is an “unwarranted waste of time.”

Earlier this month, House Republicans sent a letter to McCluskie, asking her to allow their resolution and articles of impeachment to be introduced in the House. McCluskie, after meeting with House GOP members, asked Weiser to weigh in.

“Since being elected, the Secretary of State has used her position as a platform for her partisan political ideology and has proven herself unfit for this elected position,” the March 7 letter from House Republicans stated.

“The Secretary of State’s request for the removal of a Presidential Candidate from a primary ballot, on the basis of accusations and personal feelings, demonstrates a lack of professionalism and integrity,” the letter continued.

The letter claimed Griswold participated in the effort to remove former President Donald Trump from the Colorado presidential ballot. However, that lawsuit, to the U.S Supreme Court ruling that Trump would say on the ballot, was filed by several Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Griswold was a defendant when the case went to the Colorado Supreme Court, which ruled to remove Trump from the ballot for participating in the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The U.S. Supreme Court did not dispute that insurrection claim.

The question Weiser was asked to address dealt with deciding what legal frameworks, statutes or case law would govern an impeachment process and what grounds would exist for a state official to be impeached.

Weiser’s opinion first said no state law or rule provides “express procedural requirements for consideration of an impeachment proceeding by the House of Representatives.”

The opinion, however, also noted that impeachment proceedings in the past-there have been a total of six-have begun with a House resolution, subject to House Rule 26.

As to the grounds for impeachment, Weiser wrote the state Constitution dictates a person can be removed for “high crimes and misdemeanors” and malfeasance in office.

Weiser pointed out that since 1876, the House has considered impeachments of six state officers, three of which resulted in impeachment. The most recent occurred in 2004, when House Republicans sought the impeachment of a Denver District Court judge for a ruling he made in a child adoption case.

Weiser noted the last time a state officer was impeached was in 1939 in a case involving two state Civil Service Commission members; both were impeached.

Secretary of State John Carr was impeached by the House in 1935 based on bribery allegations but resigned before the Senate could hold a trial.

But Weiser also opined that it’s McCluskie’s call on whether the impeachment resolution sought by the House GOP could come forward at all.

“The Speaker has discretion to bring a resolution seeking the impeachment of a state officer before the full House or to refer the resolution to a committee of reference,” Weiser wrote.

The Constitution is silent on how the House should begin an impeachment proceeding and the process the House must follow when considering whether to impeach a state officer, he added.

Weiser also noted the Constitution’s language around what defines malfeasance.

“Malfeasance consists of doing an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; it involves an act which the officer has no authority to do. Malfeasance in office cannot be charged except for breach of a positive statutory duty or for performing a discretionary act with an improper or corrupt motive,” he said, citing Colorado Supreme Court rulings.

Rep. Ryan Armagost, R-Berthoud, who is expected to sponsor the resolution, told Colorado Politics the opinion held no surprises.

“It seemed like what we already knew,” Armagost said. “I think the only thing she was unclear of was whether to have it read on the floor or sent to a committee of reference.”

He believes the opinion helps McCluskie make the statement that it’s her discretion to bring the resolution forward at all.

“The ball’s in her court,” Armagost said. “We’ve been more than willing to communicate and wait on things, but at this point it’s an intentional dragging of feet,” in hopes the issue would fall off the radar, he added.