The Politico raises the question of whether Senator Ted Stevens, now that he is a convicted felon, can vote for his own reelection to the U.S. Senate. Under Alaska law, those convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude are disenfranchised. So, it seems, whether Stevens can vote depends on a) whether making false statements constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, and b) whether the disenfranchisement becomes effective upon conviction, or only after sentencing and entry of the judgment. Another wrinkle, The Politico notes, is that Senator Stevens may have already voted absentee because he's been stuck in D.C. for his own trial.
Meanwhile, Rick Hasen notes that were Senator Stevens to resign, Governor Palin would appoint a successor. Were Stevens to resign after the election — say, in January — Palin would still pick a replacement, but would also have to call a special election to fill out the remainder of the full Senate term. As for what if Sen. Stevens were to withdraw from the race (fat chance), Alaska law appears to be silent about how to deal with a candidate's withdrawal so close to the election.
UPDATE: More from Rick Hasen here, including a potential constitutional wrinkle in Alaska's rules for filling Senate vacancies.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Can Sen. Stevens Vote for Himself?
- Sen. Stevens - Guilty:
Lautenberg for Torricelli after the deadline
I would say that, under the Torricelli precedent, the Alaska Republicans should be permitted to replace him with a handpicked candidate, despite what any statute may say. The New Jersey Supreme Court held:
the Democratic Party could replace Sen. Torricelli on the ballot despite his withdrawal after the statutory deadline for replacing candidates on the ballot.
OF course, that's a Democrat. Where Democrats are involved, we ought to liberally construe the law in order to permit Democrats to have the best chance possible to win the election. OTOH, where Republicans are involved, we ought to make sure that the laws are strictly construed to ensure that Democrats to have the best chance possible to win the election.
At least in Georgia all felonies are crimes of moral turpitude, and misdemeanors involving crimen falsi are also crimes of moral turpitude.
What -- and by so doing qualify herself to be elected President after only 2 years?
Pete
:) I like.
As for replacing him on the ballot: I'd have supported such an effort as recently as a few weeks ago, but the election is only a week from today. It's a tad late now. If the Republicans want to run a "he'll resign immediately and then we can elect a real Senator" campaign, however, they're welcome to try.
What -- and by so doing qualify herself to be elected President after only 2 years?
I think it will take longer than that before she's ready to handle such tough questions as "what newspapers and magazines do you read."
(Yes, they have a 1A right to be idiots, but if the parties were reversed I guarantee you it would have been taken down by the police, 1A be damned)
Mavericky! You betcha!
--But of course, Palin shuns anything that even hints of impropriety or abuse of power.
Would you consider yourself to be a cynical person?
Glad to see the mind-control rays are reaching you at last, A.S.
Perhaps Overlord Xinos IV will deem you a worthy replacement for Joe Lieberman.
2) Unrelatedly, it is continually surprising to me that election laws aren't clearly written to address the most obvious contigencies. Setting aside all the partisan nonsense about Florida in 2000, it is patently obvious that no one looked at the law ex ante and said, "Ithe presidential election were close in this state, what would happen next?" Similarly, in Alaska, you would think that there would be something in the statute that addressed the withdrawal or incapacity of a candidate close to the election, but I guess not. Has anyone explored why there seems to be this systematic deficit in election law?
I think as a matter of policy that election laws should allow for exchanges of candidates only up to a certain time within an election - once an absentee or military ballot has been filed the electors would be stuck with those candidates. What rankled about NJ and would rankle about a late switch in Alaska is the concept of a political party being able to substitute in a better candidate when their first candidate is likely to lose. Torricelli was polling bad due to ethical problems, and his political party had a one vote lead in the United States Senate that they wanted to protect. If a court is not going to enforce a statutory filing deadline, then what guideposts are there? Can any party substitute a poorly performing candidate at any time? Why did 4 weeks work? Would 1 week work? With early voting, how many previously cast votes can be disregarded? Where would the courts be getting their standards in the absence of a statute? The type of ruling allowing for post-deadline switches clearly draws courts into political conflicts where the courts' neutrality can reasonably be questioned.
There's not really any way to avoid this scenario. You'd have the same situation where a guy is on trial on election day, votes in the election, the gets convicted the next day.
According to the polls, the race was a dead heat before Stevens was convicted and the election is now just a week away. Very little time for Stevens to turn things around, even assuming he remains at liberty to do so pending sentencing. McCain and Palin have both thrown him overboard as well so I wouldn't give Stevens much of a chance on election day.
He's going to get a Christmas Eve pardon from W. That's his appeal.
The trial judge bent over backward for Stevens with regard to the prosecutorial misconduct with very favorable jury instructions and the jury still convicted him.
Apparently the jury foolishly thought that a man with a Harvard law degree and 40 years in the Senate would have perhaps some inkling of an idea that a "chalet" (Stevens' term) worthy of being profiled on MTV's Cribs cost a lot more to trick out than Stevens claimed. Plus, the jury probably didn't like the fact that the guy tried to blame his wife for everything (nice defense strategy).
The guy's a scumbag that the jury saw through. My only question is why isn't the press hounding Colin Powell for being a character witness for this guy. Either Powell is an idiot or he perjured himself.
No, there is nothing in the Alaska law that retroactively disenfranchises a felon from voting in completed elections. Here, we have a (potentially) disenfranchised person whose vote may be counted in an election that is still a week away. The question is whether, if Stevens voted absentee, he is voting in the upcoming election despite the fact that he's no longer permitted to do so, or has he already voted, perfectly legally, in that same election?
I think the latter. It would be the same as if the jury deliberated for another week, and Stevens voted Tuesday morning but then the verdict came down Tuesday afternoon before the polls close. Stevens (if he voted absentee and if he is disenfranchised) already voted in the election. He would now be prohibited, but he's already prohibited from voting at this point because he already voted.
Would you consider yourself to be a cynical person?
Cynical? Naaaah. Realistic, I'd call it.
That is Outsider thinking.
Doubtful, Anderson. I have been assured that this tin foil I am wearing prevents the mind control rays from reaching me.
What do you mean "the full Senate term"? I assume we agree that if Begich wins the election in a week, he will take office as Alaska's junior Senator in January? It would be exceedingly strange to call a special election to fill a Senate seat for two and a half months, at which point the winner of the special election would yield to Begich. Why would Stevens bother to resign in such a situation? Why would anyone want him to?
If you honestly have to ask this question, there's a good chance you were the juror that Stevens was looking for.
...
here is indisputable documentary evidence that the defendant is a member of Congress...
With respect to Skyler's 2:25 p.m. comment, Senator Stevens has not been jailed pending sentencing--and from what I read, there is a distinct possibility he will not receive a prison sentence at all.
Should Senator Stevens be re-elected and then resign, Alaska law requires a special election (thanks to Frank Murkowski's shenanigans when he appointed his daughter to succeed him).
Frankly, I suspect that Nick Begich will defeat Senator Stevens now--a sad end to the career of the man who had been Alaska's pre-eminent politician--even if he is also an arrogant jackass.
Nate at 538 had the race basically tied before the conviction, so it's hard to imagine another outcome at this point.
Then again, Alaska is so far west that it's hard to tell how the outcome of the eastern seaboard races (where polls will have been closed for hours while AK is still voting) will effect the race.
Any lawyer anywhere with even a modest understanding of trial practice knows that judges often deny mid-trial mistrial motions — as this judge did repeatedly after several major prosecution blunders — knowing full well that (a) a not guilty verdict may moot those mistrial issues before they're raised anew as new trial and appellate arguments, and that (b) he'll have another chance, before ruling on the new trial motion and entering the judgment of conviction, to reconsider the alleged mid-trial errors in the light of the entire trial record and after less pressured deliberation.
I still think it's likely that the judge will adhere to his trial rulings -- as most trial judges do, most of the time -- and that he'll deny the motion for new trial and enter a judgment of conviction based on the verdict. But that's far from a foregone conclusion, and Brendan Sullivan and his team are not potted plants.
Ted Stevens today stands having been "found guilty" by a jury, but not yet having been "convicted" by the court — and that's a distinction with enormous significance, not just a matter of legal niceties.
Why in the world people who ought to know better are treating this as a close question or an open question, I can't understand.
Or am I having a senior moment?
Bottom line: not good but better than someone represented by an overworked public defender.
Not good. Most criminal defendants are unsuccessful. On the other hand, he has some very expensive attorneys who will be scouring the record looking for issues.
Bottom line: not good but better than someone represented by an overworked public defender.
And he's had a big role, I'm sure, in getting those judges in the position that they're in.
I'll go back to my hypothetical question, if Stevens is convicted and reelected and gets thrown in the hoosegow and is not ejected by that forum (yes, lots of if's) can he still travel freely to the Senate chambers to vote there? The Constitution clearly says yes, but I wonder if this has ever been tested to that extreme.
Would have been better if you had said ...
Hey! Most of the best appellate advocates in my state are public defenders. All too often, my job is to clean up some giant mess left by private counsel. And do you want someone who steps in front of an appellate panel every few years or every few weeks? That said, Stevens picked one of the best firms to do his trial work. He'll probably pick a good one to do his appeal.
As to the chances of victory, odds are generally against the appellant, but we have no idea about Stevens' specific case. Unless you followed every objection, you just can't say.