The Missouri Supreme Court has made a ruling after hearing arguments on Monday. As per the ruling, an individual who had pleaded guilty to a felony but later on received a pardon from the governor will not be allowed to run for the Cass County Commission in August.
Justice W. Brent Powell wrote a 14-page opinion in which the court affirmed a circuit court’s decision with a 5-1 vote. The decision stated that Hershel Young did not meet the qualifications to be a candidate for elective public office in the state. As a result, he was deemed ineligible for the primary election on August 6th.
In his statement, Powell made it clear that according to the Missouri law, individuals who have pleaded guilty to a felony offense are ineligible to hold any elective public office.
Jeff Fletcher, the Cass County Clerk, filed a petition in circuit court concerning the status of Young’s candidacy after disallowing him to be on the ballot.
During the court proceedings, Christopher Benjamin, who is representing Mr. Young, narrated an incident that occurred in the mid-90s. According to him, someone had spat on Mr. Young’s wife, which led to him pleading guilty for an assault charge. Benjamin further added that if assault charges were not applicable at that time, it would have merely been considered a fight. He emphasized that a fight that occurred three decades ago should not serve as a disqualifying factor for someone running for the county commission.
According to Tyson Ketchum, the attorney representing Fletcher, their argument about Young’s ineligibility is supported by various court cases. Ketchum emphasized that Missouri law is considered valid and constitutional, and that Young needed to provide clear evidence of the statute violating the constitution.
During the arguments, Ketchum highlighted that while a pardon from the governor can erase the conviction, the guilt still remains. He emphasized that the guilty plea is the pertinent disqualifier in this case, and there is no constitutional provision that prohibits the legislature from incorporating this disqualifier in the statute.
In her opinion, Judge Robin Ransom was the sole dissenter who stated that she would reverse the decision and send the case back to the circuit court. Her intention was to allow Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey to challenge the constitutional validity of the state law. However, she also acknowledged that the timing of the impending election preparation would not provide enough time for the circuit court to make a decision.
Ransom expressed his belief that the Court should not be allowed to address arguments related to the constitutionality of the statute in an appeal without notifying the attorney general beforehand.
Justice Zel Fischer sided with the majority, but also supported Ransom’s argument for Bailey to consider Young’s claim of constitutional rights violation.
According to Fischer, providing notice is crucial in a declaratory judgment action that challenges the constitutionality of a state statute. This is because if the required notice is not given, the attorney general is not able to respond or defend the state’s interests in any legal proceeding or tribunal.
Read More:
- A gunman in Queens kills his sibling and injures his mother before committing suicide
- Ex-gang leader and former NYC high school dean receives life imprisonment for 2010 murder – NBC New York