Home Commentary Open forum The Voice of the People Should Supersede the Courts

The Voice of the People Should Supersede the Courts

0

Dear Source:
It was indeed a sad day in VI History when on August 28, 2014, the V.I. Supreme Court issued its ruling that Sen. Alicia "Chucky" Hansen was not eligible to run for reelection in November. As a consequence, the Court instructed the supervisor of elections to set aside Hansen’s nomination papers. Was this a fair decision or a miscarriage of justice?
Is the opinion from the Court consistent with that of the electorate and does it reflect what the VI society considers to be a crime of moral turpitude? Evidently, many constituents in the St. Croix district do not share the same sentiments as the V.I. Supreme Court judges because Sen. Hansen has twice been duly elected. The electorate must have opined that willful failure to file tax returns is not as evil as a conviction for murder, kidnap or rape. No person would argue such heinous acts involve malice and would be morally wrong in any civilized society. The People’s Court spoke when the voters cast their ballots in favor of Sen. Hansen in 2010 and 2012. Therefore, it was astonishing to hear a ruling that contradicted how the majority feels about the matter.
Despite numerous challenges about her eligibility to run for office, Sen. Hansen remains committed to doing work on behalf of the People. However, the real issue is not about her. The crux of the matter is eloquently expressed in this quote: "The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government."
Voting is a constitutional right that should not be taken for granted. It is the responsible of every voter to scrutinize all candidates on a ballot. Reelecting a senator who has demonstrated dedication as a public servant must also be considered a sacred fundamental right. No individual including a judge should have the ability to infringe said right. Being seated in any legislature is a privilege that can only be bestowed by the People. If it is the wish of the electorate to have Sen. Hansen represent the people of St. Croix, once again, what good could come by disenfranchising voters?
Although the order of the V.I. Supreme Court is now moot, there are still lingering questions concerning the action of the judges. In the aftermath of the outrageous ruling, intensive debates persist. There is even an attempt to have the order by Judge Wilma Lewis be overturned by filing an appeal in the Third District Court. Incredibly, certain individuals are determined to interfere with the opportunity of the voters to freely participate in the election process.
On September 24, Honorable Wilma Lewis ordered that Sen. Hansen’s name be placed on the ballot. There is no doubt that she had no other choice since the Revise Organic Act of 1954 (ROA) clearly states that "No person shall be eligible to be a member of the legislature …who has not been convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude and has not received a pardon restoring his civil rights."
The facts in Sen. Hansen’s case are indisputable. She was only convicted for committing a misdemeanor, subsequently served two terms in the Senate and received a full pardon from the governor on September 3. A review of her record shows that she was never arrested or charged for a crime involving moral turpitude. "Chucky" Hansen is not a dangerous felon. Could the Supreme Court judges have erred or were their action meant to be both selective prosecution and selective persecution?
It seems like Sen. Hansen was tried twice and received an additional punishment for the same offense which is defined as double jeopardy. The double jeopardy clause was written in the US Constitution to protect individuals from the financial, emotional, and social consequences of successive prosecutions; eliminate judicial discretion to impose cumulative punishments that the Legislature have not approved. Was the double jeopardy doctrine violated?
Is there an ex post facto implication? An ex post facto law has the effect of creating a new crime or increasing the penalties for an existing crime. Sen. Hansen was vetted as an eligible candidate in the past. At the time of her sentence, there was no law prohibiting her from running for office. Further, Congress has never exactly defined what is a crime of moral turpitude. Be mindful that it was Congress that enacted the ROA, a federal document that govern us. Shouldn’t Congress be the only authority to amend the ROA?
Congress apparently has no interest in making any revision to the ROA. It has authorized us to write our own constitution. The recent constitution draft sent to Congress was rejected. A definition for a crime involving moral turpitude is not written in that draft. Why did the VI Supreme Court usurp the 30th Legislature’s power to define crimes of moral turpitude? Legislators are elected by the voters but local judges are appointed by the governor. Why should court judges be allowed to speak as representatives of the People? Let the voice of the People supersede that of the Court.
According to the ROA, the VI Legislature has a right to determine if one of its members is unqualified to serve. Unlike former Sen. Mapp, "Chucky" Hansen was never removed from office due to being deemed unqualified to serve. The infraction she committed occurred prior to her being sworn into the current Legislature. Since then, she has received a pardon. Why is it even a thought that she should be put out of the Senate during these perilous moment when skillful leadership is desperately need? Does a pardon have any validity to those seeking to have her dismissed from the 30th Legislature?
Finally, when it seemed like the local court battles had ended, another episode of litigation has just began. On Oct. 1, Judge Lewis, the same federal judge that recently granted Sen. Hansen a Permanent Injunction, decided that a claim by the plaintiff in the original lawsuit against the supervisor of elections should be handled by the VI Superior Court. In plain language, the main enemy of Sen. Hansen has not given up on his crusade to destroy her political career that he woefully envies. So the saga continues. When will the madness end?
Verdel L. Petersen, St. Croix

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here