Those who voted against expulsion
It's pretty obvious why former Rep. Thomas Wright voted against his expulsion from the House Thursday. It may have been the one motive of his that wasn't questioned during speeches on the House floor.
But for the four others who voted not to expel Wright, that could be a tough vote to talk about in the upcoming election. But a quick check of SBOE filings shows that won't be much of a concern.
Rep. Earl Jones, of Greensboro, has no announced competition in the primary or general elections.
Reps. Earline Parmon, of Winston-Salem, has no announced competition in the primary or general elections.
Larry Womble, of Winston-Salem, has no announced competition in the primary or general elections.
Mary McAllister, of Fayetteville, faces Elmer Floyd in the primary. There is no registered Republican. Floyd has tried and failed to unseat McCallister three times.
That said, there are plenty of other honorables who voted to chuck Wright to the curb who don't have any competition to speak of. But the trend was worth noting.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Despite my certainty that Wright is guilty of crimes, I'm troubled by the timing on action in this matter - both in relation to the judicial process and in comparison to the sordid Jim Black affair. I find myself buying the "rush to judgment" argument.
Can you shed any light on the options the House had? Could they have "suspended" rather than expelled, pending a guilty finding in court?
Posted on March 22, 2008 10:35 AM
As it was described last week, the House basically had four options:
* Do nothing: I think the leadership thought this was a non-starter for several reasons, not the least of which is they didn't want to make their members vulnerable in an election year.
* Reprimand: Sort of a written "you done wrong" note. A step lighter than censure.
* Censure: Bring the guy to the well of the House and read a formal rebuke. This is what Rep. Jones tried to put forward and couldn't get the votes for.
* Expulsion: the route that was taken.
In essence, Wright was already suspended from some of his more potent jobs: Hackney had removed him as a committee chairman. But I don't know that anyone had brought up the idea of suspension as a formal long-term option.
One reason that might not have flown: You would essentially leave the people of that district unrepresented. It's not like the case where a legislator is absent for military duty and they can appoint a temporary replacement. (They just passed a law for that.)
In the case as it is now, at least a replacement gets appointed and acts on behalf of the people in his district.
I don't know if that helps your reservations. I will say it will be quite curious if he's re-elected and/or acquitted and still left outside the legislature.
Posted on March 22, 2008 2:33 PM
Thanks.
I'm still unsettled by the "all deliberate speed" approach to this. Maybe if I had been in the room and seen the evidence first hand, this would have seemed like the kind of egregious violation that warrants a big-time smackdown.
I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this. I know you have more than enough other work to keep you busy.
Posted on March 24, 2008 11:23 AM