Monday, October 27, 2008

Ted Stevens Found Guilty On All 7 Counts

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Palin Pals Around With Felons
A federal jury on Monday found Republican Sen. Ted Stevens guilty of lying on his financial disclosure forms, ending in disgrace the four-decade Senate career of a man whose imprint on Alaska dates to before statehood.

It is the highest-profile felony conviction in a sweeping four-year federal investigation into corruption in Alaska politics, and an almost unprecedented conviction by a jury of a sitting U.S. senator.

Jurors found that Stevens, 84, willfully filed false financial disclosure forms that hid such gifts as renovations that doubled his home in size. Those gifts, valued at as much as $250,000 over seven years, came mostly from his former friend Bill Allen, the star prosecution witness in Stevens' trial and the former owner of Veco Corp. The oilfield-services company was one of Alaska's largest private employers before Allen, caught up in the federal corruption probe, was forced to sell it last year.

Now, voters will decide whether Stevens, who has represented the state in the U.S. Senate since 1968 and before that helped usher in statehood for Alaska, should continue to serve as their senator. For the first time in his career, Stevens faces a competitive re-election fight, against Democratic Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. - McClatchy

There are reports that there was a typo in the indictment which could possibly help Stevens if when he appeals.

You can read more about our next Senator from Alaska Mark Begich on his campaign site.

Comments (19)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Login or signup now to comment.
Long Island Democrat's avatar

Long Island Democrat · 857 weeks ago

Alright, this hopefully locks up the seat for Begich. I hate to exult over a guy falling like this, but the fact is that he brought it upon himself through his corruption.

I had figured that if Stevens was found not guilty he'd be reelected, if the trial dragged past election day it would be a tossup, and if Stevens were convicted Begich would win. Looks like we have the third scenario.
Reply
I just saw the e-mail (LA Times beat the ADN to my inbox with this). I'll have to watch the commentary on the ADN here; both Alaksa newspapers I've seen have been withholding and waiting.
Reply
Here's a question: the Politico story on this suggests that, even if Stevens were to win re-election, he might be "expelled" from the Senate. If that happens, what does Alaska state law say about naming a successor? Would it be in the hands of...gulp...governor Palin???
Reply
7 replies · active less than 1 minute ago
I wonder if she could name herself?
Reply
That would probably be a bad idea, unless she wanted to then run for the seat in a special.
Reply
Long Island Democrat's avatar

Long Island Democrat · 857 weeks ago

Yes, Palin would appoint his successor. There is recent precendent for this is Alaska.

In 2002, Frank Murkowski resigned from the Senate to become governor. As governor, he had the right to appoint his Senate replacement, and chose Lisa Murkowski. The names are not a coincidence; Lisa is his daughter. This was widely seen as nepotism and helped Palin's successful primary challenge against Murkowski in 2006.
Reply
I wonder if the Senate could get the 2/3rds majority necessary to expell Stevens as well.
Reply
But the Alaska Legislature took away this power after Governor Murkowski used it to put Lisa in the Senate. See http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text....
Reply
First, U.S. Constitution, Amendment 17:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Now the fun part: The Alaska State Legislature took away this power in 2004 -- sort of:

Sec. 15.40.145. Temporary appointment of United States senator. When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator, the governor may, at least five days after the date of the vacancy but within 30 days after the date of the vacancy, appoint a qualified individual to fill the vacancy temporarily until the results of the special election called to fill the vacancy are certified. If a special election is not called for the reasons set out in AS 15.40.140, the individual shall fill the vacancy temporarily until the results of the next general election are certified.

So what about this special election?

Sec. 15.40.140. Condition and time of calling special election. When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator or United States representative, the governor shall, by proclamation, call a special election to be held on a date not less than 60, nor more than 90, days after the date the vacancy occurs. However, if the vacancy occurs on a date that is less than 60 days before or is on or after the date of the primary election in the general election year during which a candidate to fill the office is regularly elected [YEARS], the governor may not call a special election.

So Governor Palin could appoint a temporary, but that temproary would have to face a special election in the winter or early spring.
Reply
Dink Singer's avatar

Dink Singer · 857 weeks ago

The people of Alaska, through Initiative and Referendum took the temporary appointment power away from the governor in November 2004. Sec. 15.40.145 is still in the statutes, but contains the comment "See revisor's note". There is a constitutional argument that the 17th Amendment gives the state legislature the exclusive power to grant the power of temporary appointment to the Senate to the governor and thus the Initiative and Referendum was invalid. I doubt that Governor Palin will pick a fight over this.
Reply
That's an interesting argument. I think I'd side with the Governor on that one, though as I've said, the only reason the Governor would really _need_ to make an appointment is to give herself the advantage of incumbency if she wanted to run for the seat, and ignoring an initiative is not the way to get on the good side of the electorate.

I cannot imagine how that would go. Presumably the AG would have to bring suit, and the Alaska Supreme Court would decide. But unless the Alaska Supreme Court is empowered to interpret the United States Constitution, they would have to side with the AG, which would require Palin to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. I would love to see that question answered by SCOTUS, but it would be moot by then, since all that would take more than 90 days.
Reply
Dink Singer's avatar

Dink Singer · 857 weeks ago

If our Democratic Senators had more guts, they could have decided a related 17th Amendment question by refusing to seat John Barrasso (R-WY). Barrasso was appointed by Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal. Wyoming law requires the governor to pick a interim Senator from a list of three candidates submitted by the "state central committee" of the party to which the last incumbent belonged. This is a much clearer violation of the Amendment. It only allows the legislature to "empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments", not to participate in the appointment decision either directly or by creating a process that restricts the governor's power. The Senate should have exercised its power to judge the qualifications of its members and found the Wyoming law unconstitutional and the appointment void.

You can find a great discussion of this question at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i...

An opinion on the Initiative question from the Alaskan Senior Assistant Attorney General (in the Murkowski administration) is at http://www.law.state.ak.us/pdf/press/us_sen_vacan...
Reply
Dink Singer's avatar

Dink Singer · 857 weeks ago

Reply
OMG I actually remembered my login ID and password.

Given the information put forth here by long island democrat, I can say I probably would have voted for spunky myself given the alternative lol.

I was going to say that anyone that would vote for Sarah Palin would probably vote for a convicted felon as well, but who knows if I still agree with that given that information. Anyway, There are literaly 8 more days of news coverage before the election and if one of those days, or even half of a day, is focused on this, then that could prove to be a very beneficial thing indeed to the presedential election, regardless of how it plays out in the alaska senate race.
Reply
Gov Spunky may be guilty on the same charges as Stevens since she got her mainson built free of charge...besides her abuse of authority in Troppergate!
Reply
It will be interesting to see the polls tomorow - I am syre they are calling Alaska voters tonight. I am sure the convictions will help but I am less certain that it will be an automatic victory for Beich.
Reply
Oregon Dem's avatar

Oregon Dem · 857 weeks ago

Spunky's reply:

"This is a sad day for Alaska and for Sen. Stevens and his family. The verdict shines a light on the corrupting influence of the big oil service company that was allowed to control too much of our state. ... As governor of the state of Alaska, I will carefully monitor this situation and take any appropriate action as needed. In the meantime, I ask the people of Alaska to join me in respecting the workings of our judicial system. I'm confident Sen. Stevens will do what's right for the people of Alaska." - Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska.

Gee Spunky - why did you not say what the "right thing" is....
Reply
I can't recal them off the top of my head, but I think the U.S. Supreme Court has had a case or two in the past decade dealing with references to state legislatures in the U.S. Constitution. My memory is that the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted legislature as being the "legislative power" regardless of whether it is exercised by the official legislature or by initiative.
Reply
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
DInk Singer's avatar

DInk Singer · 857 weeks ago

There are no recent cases dealing with referendum vs. legislature. The cases that did are Hawke v. Smith, 1920 and Davis v. Hildebrandt, 1916. In Hawke the court ruled that "legislatures" in Article V (amendment ratification) did not include referendum. In Davis the court allowed a referendum rejecting a reapportionment but on the basis of Federal statute not reaching the Constitutional question.

A recent case where the term "legislature" was strictly construed was good old Bush v. Gore.
Reply

Comments by