Felons in public office

[RHenriksen]

This is an interesting (and short) editorial. Points out that while felons can't do a lot of things, serving as a politician apparently is still on the table?

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/opini ... 926718.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[seamusTX]

It's not that big a problem. How often is a legislator convicted of a felony during his term?

In this case, Mr. Flores was convicted after the end of the legislative session. He had no real power at that point. The only problem, such as it was, is that he continued to collect his paltry salary.

He also has not yet appealed, so the proposed bill would still not apply to him by the time his term ended.

If a legislator were convicted during a session, probably he would be stripped of all committee and party positions. All he could do then is vote on the floor.

It's necessary to keep in mind that denying a legislator the right to vote or removing him from office disenfranchises the people he represents. Removing any elected official from office is a serious matter.

I might feel differently if the crime were murder or child molesting, but it's too easy to be convicted of a felony for some paperwork issue or loosely defined obstruction of justice.

- Jim

[ELB]

...It's necessary to keep in mind that denying a legislator the right to vote or removing him from office disenfranchises the people he represents.

Mr. Flores was convicted of perjury and tampering with records specifically required because of his position as a legislator -- essentially not reporting all his income. Nine felonies and two misdemeanors. He did not report income from 10 businesses, claiming as a consultant he was not required to -- but businesses testified he was an employee, not a consultant.

From looking at the past stories, he was just shy of being prosecuted for bribery. One of the witnesses against him -- who will be serving 10 years in prison -- testified he paid Flores $40K to sponsor an amendment to Texas legislation favorable to the witness.

This was not just a paperwork error, and it was directly related to his legislative work.

His constituents were disenfranchised a long time ago, they just didn't know it. Because of the timing of the trial and conviction, yes removing him at this point would have little practical effect, but as a rule, felony should equal removal. There are mechanism in place to replace elected officials.

In the case of Terri Hodge (state rep from Dallas area), when she got a plea bargain from federal prosecutors for tax issues related to bribes she received as a legislator, part of the bargain was that she had to resign her seat. The reason given by the prosecutor in this case for not doing so -- that they want him to file some more forms -- doesn't make any sense to me, but that may be lack of indepth reporting.

[Pawpaw]

Heck, what about Marion Barry?

As mayor of DC, he was sent to prison for smoking Crack and then re-elected upon his release.

What's that old saying about a fox guarding the henhouse?

[seamusTX]

Seems like the majority of D.C. residents smoke crack.

That brings up a legitimate point, though. The founders did not see fit to state qualifications for elected office such as a clean criminal record, mental sanity, or even sex (a woman could run for office before women could generally vote—and some did).

The voters can make these decisions based on the public record.

ELB, I did not know the details that you stated and was too lazy to look them up.

- Jim

[Oldgringo]

Heck, what about Marion Barry?

As mayor of DC, he was sent to prison for smoking Crack and then re-elected upon his release.

What's that old saying about a fox guarding the henhouse?

What does that say about Barry's constituency, eh?

EDIT:

seamusTX beat me to it.

[KD5NRH]

I might feel differently if the crime were murder or child molesting, but it's too easy to be convicted of a felony for some paperwork issue or loosely defined obstruction of justice.

GC 572 is hardly "loosely defined." It's excessively wordy, but it boils down to "If you don't understand all this, play it safe and list everything more valuable than a Kroger coupon that you have received in the last year - if in doubt, list the Kroger coupons too." Additionally, he wasn't forgetting to list some dinners or a $50 scratch off ticket; we're talking five consecutive years of more than $100k per year in unreported income, including "gifts" from lobbying firms. That isn't something that just "slips one's mind," particularly when one's income is sufficient that there are almost certainly accountants and lawyers double checking everything. Four felonies and seven misdemeanors is going beyond just careless bookkeeping.

That brings up a legitimate point, though. The founders did not see fit to state qualifications for elected office such as a clean criminal record, mental sanity, or even sex (a woman could run for office before women could generally vote—and some did).

At the time, the best candidates were a bunch of British refugees who had just finished making war upon their previous government. By most people's definitions - even then - all of them were somewhat crazy.

[Bullwhip]

It's not that big a problem. How often is a legislator convicted of a felony during his term?

LOL, you must not live close to Louisiana!

[seamusTX]

If a Louisiana politician isn't under indictment or getting dragged through the muck over some scandal, people wonder what he's hiding. They couldn't have a quorum if they got all they got rid of all the criminals.

But Texas isn't Louisiana.

- Jim