advertisement

Missouri high court mulls if felon can stay in office

Thursday, November 3, 2011 | 7:37 p.m. CDT

JEFFERSON CITY — A western Missouri county official asked the Missouri Supreme Court on Thursday to let him remain in office although he previously pleaded guilty to a felony.

Herschel Young, who pleaded guilty in 1995 to assault after hitting someone who spat on his wife, was elected presiding commissioner in Cass County last year. However, a state law that took effect in 2007 makes felons ineligible to be candidates for public office, and a trial judge in February ordered that Young be removed from his post.

Young, 44, said that law is unfair and should be found unconstitutional. He said people should be allowed to hold office after they have completed their punishment for misdeeds.

"What makes somebody's past make them a worse leader than someone else?" said Young in an interview outside the state Supreme Court's chamber. "In the Bible, it says do not hold the sins of my youth against me. Nobody in this world can throw a rock; everybody has got a sin of some sort. I've never claimed to be perfect."

Young, a Republican, defeated incumbent official Gary Mallory, a Democrat. Young has remained the presiding commissioner in Cass County, which is south of Kansas City, but he said he has been in "limbo" because of the legal challenge and is unable to participate in commission meetings, vote or sign contracts.

At issue is a Missouri law that states no one shall "qualify as a candidate for elective public office in the state of Missouri who has been convicted of or found guilty of or pled guilty to a felony under the laws of this state."

Attorney Charlie Dickman, who represented Young, said the law's restrictions cannot be applied to Young because it would amount to an additional penalty that was not in place when he pleaded guilty. In addition, Dickman said there is no basis to strip Young of his position because the law applies to candidacy and not to fitness to actually hold the office.

Arguing the case was assistant prosecutor Scott Wright, who said the restrictions upon felons running for office were in place several years before Young filed to run for the county office and did not force him to do anything new. Wright said political candidates have no right to presume that election laws will never be changed and warned that invalidating the restrictions could lead to a road where no new law could be enforced on anyone who already was born before the statute was enacted.

Wright said one of the qualifications for someone to serve in an elected office is to have met the requirements to be a valid candidate for it.

Missouri Chief Justice Richard Teitelman questioned whether the removal of someone who already has won an election could impede the rights of voters.

Wright said the Missouri legislature chose to bar felons from running for office to help ensure public confidence and trust.

"The people are served through the enforcement of that law," he said.

Arguments before the high court Thursday also focused on whether the candidacy restriction was valid because it only applies to felonies in Missouri and does not address crimes that were committed elsewhere.

The case was among the first heard since Judge George W. Draper III was appointed last month to join the seven-judge court.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Sharon Connely November 4, 2011 | 8:25 a.m.

I am very tired of this ridiculous holdup by those who did not want to accept what the voters chose to do. And I believe some of the reasons are because the rest of the commissioners have had to answer some very serious questions for the mess the county is in. I don't believe that Mr. Young should be held up from fulfilling his duties that he was elected to do. Why did the county wait until after the election? Mr. Young has ran for other offices and no one said anything. Why now? Other than the fact that he shook up those that do not want everyone looking to hard at what has occurred with the county in the last few years.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor November 4, 2011 | 9:20 a.m.

1. If he plead guilty to a felony before the law was passed to not allow felons to hold office, he should not be held to that law. The "new punishment" for the crime that was added after he plead guilty can not be enforced on him. Only on those who plead guilty (not born...) afterwards.

2. Shouldn't have this been cleared up before he was ever cleared to be on the ballot???

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements