THE JUDICIAL TENURE ACT, OFTEN CALLED THE NUNN BILL, IS DESIGNED TO SET UP A MECHANISM FOR INVESTIGATING, DISCIPLINING, AND REMOVING JUDGES WHO ARE ACCUSED OF MISCONDUCT OR WHO BECOME DISABLED; IT IS A SUPPLEMENT TO IMPEACHMENT, THE PRIMARY REMEDY AVAILABLE FOR ASSURING FEDERAL JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY. WHETHER IMPEACHMENT IS NECESSARY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AS A WAY OF HOLDING JUDGES ACCOUNTABLE IS CONTROVERSIAL. FIVE MAJOR CRITICISMS OF IMPEACHMENT HAVE BEEN ADVANCED: (1) GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT ARE TOO NARROW; (2) THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SANCTIONS; (3) THE PROCESS IS CUMBERSOME; (4) THE PROCESS IS SUBJECT TO POLITICAL MANIPULATION; AND (5) IMPEACHMENT IS RARELY USED. DUE TO SHORTCOMINGS OF THE IMPEACHMENT MECHANISM, BOTH FORMAL AND INFORMAL PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED TO ASSIST IN THE DISCIPLINE AND REMOVAL OF UNFIT JUDGES. JUDICIAL PROCEDURES ENCOMPASS SOCIAL PRESSURE, THE PROVISION OF SPECIAL BENEFITS TO OBTAIN RESIGNATIONS, THREATS, REVERSAL FOR ERRORS OF LAW, AND LIFTING A JUDGE'S CASELOAD. LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES INVOLVE SPECIAL BENEFITS TO OBTAIN RESIGNATIONS, LUCRATIVE RETIREMENT, AND THE CREATION OF AN ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL POSITION ON A TEMPORARY BASIS WHEN A JUDGE REFUSES TO RETIRE. ALTERNATIVES TO IMPEACHMENT, RECOGNIZED BY CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIARY, INCLUDE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AND SHORTENED TENURE, ADDRESS, STRENGTHENING THE AUTHORITY OF JUDICIAL COUNCILS, AND A JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND REMOVAL PROCESS. THE TWO STRONGEST ALTERNATIVES TO IMPEACHMENT APPEAR TO BE STRENGTHENING THE AUTHORITY OF JUDICIAL COUNCILS AND CREATING JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY COMMISSIONS. SEEKING TO AVOID MANY PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TRADITIONAL JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE JUDGE REMOVAL PROCEDURES, CALIFORNIA HAS CREATED THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS. ALL BUT THREE STATES (MAINE, MISSISSIPPI, AND WASHINGTON) HAVE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES. PROVISIONS OF THE NUNN BILL ARE DETAILED AND ILLUSTRATED. CASE LAW IS CITED. (DEP)