Thread by @ASFleischman

The Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled today that, although the winning Democratic candidate had been pardoned for the 40-year-old misdemeanor offense of selling mortgaged crops, he was still ineligible to hold office. His opponent wins by default. /1

…1-raikfcquaxqncofqfm.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/upl…

The Arkansas Constitution forbids anyone who has been convicted of an infamous crime from holding office. And infamous is a pretty broad term, a bit like a "crime of moral turpitude" that covers virtually any form of dishonesty. /2

Here, because the misdemeanors involved converting the property of others to his own use, it qualifies, the Court held. /3

And the pardon doesn't help, the Court ruled, because accepting a pardon is in itself an admission of wrongdoing. A pardon expresses "forgiveness, not forgetfulness." /4

Another potential problem with the disqualification here is that "infamous crime" was not defined by statute until 2017. So by adding that definition to the statute, the legislature may have effectively issue a bill of attainder or ex post facto law. /5

SCARK says that it's not a problem here, though, because the constitutional provision had already been interpreted to apply to crimes of deceit and dishonesty at the time of the conviction. /6

The Court also relied, in part, upon a finding it issued when it ruled on whether Wilson should be disbarred back in 1998 and found his action of selling mortgaged soy beans was a serious breach of ethics. /7

This might be a very clear application of black-letter letter law. And it certainly seems like the Democratic party knew this risk when they chose Wilson to run.

But it's also terrible public policy. /8

People who have committed 40-year-old crimes and then been pardoned and then lived decent lives should probably be eligible for office, and there should not be laws requiring courts to step in and announce that the runner-up is now the winner.

This law should go. /f

Oh and also I gotta point out that Irby, the case that said pardons don't restore the right to run for office, had sparse legal reasoning (SELF-EVIDENCT) and was a 4-3 opinion. Reaffirming it all these years later might have called for more analysis.

casetext.com/case/state-ex-…

As for why the Republican now wins, it was because he was the only other eligible candidate. He would have prevailed even if no one voted for him.

arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/…

FINALLY finally, an interesting contrast--Arkansas has a a way of expunging convictions that DOES allow someone to run for office, since it makes it as if the crime never occurred. But a Presidential pardon is insufficient.

Haile v. Johnston, 2016 Ark. 52