The V.I. Supreme Court declared Sen. Alicia "Chucky" Hansen’s tax convictions render her "ineligible to serve" in the next Legislature and ordered her name to be removed from the ballot, overturning the V.I. Supervisor of Elections and V.I. Superior Court, in a decision published Thursday.
The ruling is a victory for St. Croix Board of Elections Chair Adelbert Bryan, who brought suit to remove Hansen from the ballot and who has been a party to or supporter of several similar efforts to have Hansen declared ineligible.
Hansen could not be reached for comment as of 5 p.m. Thursday.
Hansen was convicted in 2009 of three counts of willful failure to file tax returns, after a long investigation related to improper influence and public corruption in the handling of a government sewer contract.
Former government officials Ohanio Harris, Ashley Andrews and Campbell Malone were sentenced to prison for their role in the scandal. Hansen was initially charged with conspiracy, fraud, accepting a bribe and conflict of interest violations. Several of the charges were dropped prior to her trial, and a jury acquitted her of the conflict of interest charge (See related links below). She was later convicted and sentenced to probation for the three much less serious misdemeanor offenses of intentional failure to file a tax return.
The Organic Act of 1954, which establishes a sort of legal constitution for the territory, forbids anyone on parole or probation for a felony or for a conviction of a crime of moral turpitude from exercising the right to vote or run for office. All the court and administrative hearings on Hansen’s eligibility have hinged upon whether Hansen’s convictions amounted to crimes of moral turpitude. The laws she was convicted of breaking do not say "turpitude."
In 2011, Senate candidate Michael Springer unsuccessfully petitioned the St. Croix Board of Elections to declare Hansen ineligible for the office. But the board determined Hansen to be eligible, relying in part on an opinion issued by Attorney General Vincent Frazer which concluded that nothing in V.I. law bars someone from holding office when convicted of a misdemeanor. In 2012, V.I. Action Group unsuccessfully again sought to have her declared ineligible, but the V.I. Supervisor of Elections and V.I. Superior Court both ruled in Hansen’s favor, citing similar reasons and the absence of any legal authority saying her convictions amounted specifically to "moral turpitude."
The V.I. Supreme Court
Hansen was convicted of "willful failure to file an income tax return for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 tax years. all of which were misdemeanors."
In May of this year, Bryan wrote Supervisor of Elections Caroline Fawkes, asking her to review Hansen’s nomination papers for this fall’s senatorial election. Fawkes determined Hansen was qualified. Bryan petitioned Superior Court, saying Fawkes erred because her three misdemeanor convictions constitute "crimes involving moral turpitude."
Hansen and Fawkes both moved to dismiss, saying the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Fawkes also moved to dismiss. Both argued the convictions did not meet the definition of "crimes of moral turpitude." Fawkes argued the law is ambiguous, but also gives her the authority to make the final determination.
Hansen had argued the doctrine of separation of powers deprived the court of jurisdiction because the Organic Act made it sole judge of the elections and qualifications of its members. But the Supreme Court ruled the Legislature only judges itself, not candidates for future elections.
Hansen also argued Bryan lacked standing because he could not show he was injured. The court ruled that argument was waived by several court and official actions.
In an opinion signed by Chief Justice Rhys Hodge, the court said letting Fawkes interpret the law would mean that it would have to affirm the opposite determination from a future supervisor of elections. The justices said the question was too important to be left subject to change based on who is supervisor of Elections.
The Superior Court upheld Fawkes decision, partly because definitions of turpitude "tend to be vague and amorphous," justifying giving the supervisor wide sway in applying the statute.
The Supreme Court, however, found case law to support declaring Hansen’s tax convictions to constitute moral turpitude, citing a 1951 U.S. Supreme Court case, Jordan v. De George, which held that a crime with fraud involved also involves moral turpitude. Hansen was not explicitly convicted of fraud. But the justices cited a 2005 Ninth Circuit opinion that even if a law does not explicitly mention intent to defraud, "a crime nevertheless may involve moral turpitude if such intent is implicit in the nature of the crime."
While Hansen was convicted of a lesser, misdemeanor offense of failure to file, the "willful" part of the legal definition creates fraudulent intent under precedent. Hence moral turpitude is involved in the willful failure to file income tax returns, the justices concluded.
The justices concluded that "pursuant to binding United States Supreme Court precedent, Hansen’s conviction for willful failure to file tax returns is a "crime involving moral turpitude" that renders her ineligible to serve in the 31st Legislature."
There is no automatic right of appeal from the V.I. Supreme Court, so this would appear to be the final legal ruling in this matter.
Al I can say is that it’s about time. It has been a disgrace. Now, can we get her to repay her salaries for the years she sat illegally as a Senator and rescind all the bills she had a hand in crafting and supporting that were passed while doing so? Oh, what a tangled web one weaves!
What about all that Hurricane money she spent and never repaid? What indeed about all those laws and monies? What happens now?
I hope all the apathetic sitting senators move to remove her ASAP.
“There is no automatic right of appeal from the V.I. Supreme Court, so this would appear to be the final legal ruling in this matter.” Thank Goodness!
FINALLY! This woman has been spewing nothing but badness and nastiness. I agree with Alana, that she needs to be IMMEDIATELY removed, as she has been found unworthy to hold such an esteemed position within Government. Failure to do so, only shows continuing corruption and disregard for the rule of law by the 30th Legislature.
If the Senate cannot remove her IMMEDIATELY, then the Governor needs to. But for the good of, and respect for ALL Virgin Islanders, and in support of this Supreme Court ruling, Hansen MUST BE REMOVED NOW!
Based on the separation of powers doctrine, I believe unseating a sitting Senator is in the hands of the legislative body, not the courts.
The supreme Court’s ruling simply removes her eligibility to be on the upcoming ballot.
Any first year law student knows that wilful failure to file income tax returns is a crime of moral turpitude. AG Vincent Frazer should be embarrassed by his opinion that kept her in office. I am still floored by the comments she made last year about spousal rape. Better late than never!
Without passing judgment on Hansen’s career in office, the VI Supreme Court over reached in rendering this decision.
To make this decision, they had to construct a flimsy legal ladder: First, they cited to a 1951 immigration case in finding that fraud constitutes
moral turpitude (a term of art that has been removed from the majority of state’s laws because it is inherently vague). Second, they cited to a 9th Circuit case (not binding on the Virgin Islands) to conclude that Hansen’s crime is analogous to fraud because it contains the element “willfully” (as opposed to accidentally, etc.).
Why this is bad: Do you want a court from the 1950’s to determine what is moral and not moral in the USVI? Think about what occurred in the 50’s and what was considered moral or immoral back then: Segregation = ok but cheating on your spouse = a 1950 crime of moral turpitude. The point is, maybe we shouldn’t apply the the 1950’s morality test to a 21st century situation.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court’s argument that Congress, when passing the 1954 revised organic acts that govern the USVI, must have taken notice of the 1951 case defining moral turpitude, is bad policy. We are taking our legal cues from a 1951 non-Virgin Islands case; we are considered bound by a 1954 law passed by the US Congress (not written by Virgin Islanders); and now an un-elected branch of government (VI Supreme Court) has decided a VI elected official can no longer be an elected official.
As I said, this has nothing to do with Hansen’s career in public office. However, I believe that, ultimately, this decision should have been made by the voters or by the Legislature, not by a newly created court. And certainly not based on what constituted morality in 1951.
LP
HAHAHAHAHA!
Did you get the part about Fawkes, or another elections supervisor, potentially rendering a different decision down the road? Don’t think that would ever happen in the V.I. to accommodate someone? Rhys Hodge may overreach (like allowing legal notices to be published online – based on a 2003 analysis which still won’t pass Constitutional muster), but it seems to me “willfully” and intentionally failing to file or pay taxes with an attitude of “you owe me” about every aspect of life (wasn’t there some foreclosure action as well awhile back) while serving in the Legislature might accommodate “moral turpitude”.
On the other hand, as you say, this is jurisdictional and Hodge just made law out of vagueness so Fawkes couldn’t do just the opposite next year. We’re dealing with a public figure, here, not your average Virgin Islander, and dealing with the rules on elected officials. Time will tell how far this gets carried to other facets of V.I. society in the future. I agree that it COULD be a mistake.
What is the status of BR Number:13-0843? (To Defining Moral Turpitude – Murder, Rape, Sexual Harassment, Bestality, Embezzlement. PREV #11-1210.)Sponsors: Alicia Chucky Hansen
How long can a senator have the rights to a topic?
It would be hard to disagree that Sen. Hansen’s actions are highly questionable. Solutions include not voting for her; raising money to ensure more qualified candidates secure her seat in the Senate; petitioning to change the law as it pertains to what actions disqualify candidates so that all tax related crimes make a candidate ineligible to hold office. And that list could go on.
I think the laziest (and potentially most harmful) solution is to have a court reach back into the Korean war-era, pluck a definition from a case that has nothing to do with seeking public office, and slap a 2014 sticker on it.
What will be considered a crime of moral turpitude in the future? Out-of-date, archaic and stale law breeds ambiguity: Have you committed a crime of moral turpitude? Let’s read the papers and see what the Supreme Court has to say.
LP
Well, THAT astute commentary I can agree with after years of listing to the hatred spewing from her mouth. Doesn’t she have a master’s degree in something or other, or was it a doctorate?
I believe I heard her once say she specializes in phonics.
“Hansen was convicted in 2009 of three counts of willful failure to file tax returns, after a long investigation related to improper influence and public corruption in the handling of a government sewer contract.”
Well, if that’s not “crime involving moral turpitude” I don’t know what is. She should never have been allowed to run for office after that conviction and it is the fault of the Legislature as well as the AG because they did not take it upon themselves to do the work when the issue initially came up and to do the right and proper thing. They are all probably scrambling to cover their respective behinds since they haven’t seen fit to comment as yet.
There used to be a time when politicians used to be looked upon with respect.
Now, I look at them all as wolves in sheep’s clothing and just waiting to put a hand in someone else’s pocket.
She needs to be removed from Office and stay removed as does any Senator or public official that doesn’t make the move to remove her.
I can only shake my head in complete and utter disgust.
BTW – Wasn’t the degree a mail-ordered one?
This whole thing is a joke. Bert Bryan talking about “moral turpitude.” I wonder what his son “Pel” would have to say about that. Moral turpitude, baloney, Bert Bryan is a racist hater who, himself, should not be allowed in the legislature.
Many of you are hypocrites. You want one way of life when it benefits you and another way of life when it doesn’t. When it doesn’t, you are ready to re-assimilate yourselves to 1950’s standards. Standards that were created when the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling was still in effect. A people driven by a mindset who were no moral compass. This is the source of your standards.
Go to Miami, Wash. D.C., NY, and walk around in public with an opened unbagged bottle of Heinken and see what happens. You walk around STX with your beer, bag free. Why don’t you adopt that state-side standard of concealing your alcohol in public? Go get some moral virtue on this turpitude.
Hansen has stood up for many of you who were treated like trash. Hovensa workers, nurses, etc., etc. She should have been left alone.
Oh, by the way, Bert is a Fruit Loop. A yellow one. The VI Supreme Court just had a bowl of cereal and swallowed old Bert down with some sour milk….moral turpitude.