State Proposal 10-2

[East Detroit]

A proposal to amend the State Constitution to prohibit certain felons from holding elective office and specified types of public employment positions.

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

Make a person ineligible for election or appointment to any state or local elective office or to hold a position in public employment in this state that is policy-making or has discretionary authority over public assets, if:

- within the preceding 20 years, the person was convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust; and

- the conviction was related to the person's official capacity while holding any elective office or position of employment in local, state or federal government.

Require the State Legislature to enact laws to implement the prohibition.

Should this proposal be adopted?

[EastSider]

Yes, duh! It should be passed.

[East Detroit]

I was thinking no, because I assume they already paid for their crimes under the findings of the law.

[RYANGUARD]

This should be titled "The Kwame Kilpatrick Proposal"

[Don K]

This one sounds pretty good to me. I was reading someplace that something like this already is in the constitution, this proposal just broadens the scope of the provision, but I'll let someone who has any actual knowledge of the Michigan constitution chime in on that. My quick scan of the constitution didn't find it.

[gazhekwe]

No, on the grounds that felons have paid for their misdeeds. Yes, they should have to disclose their record, and let the voters decide whether they have done enough to convince us they have learned and repented, and will not repeat their felony. Also, there are felons whose crime has nothing to do with public office, or was far in the past and succeeded by years of honorable conduct. While the amendment seems to exclude these people, there will always be problems with them, leading to unfair exclusions from hair splitting. Everyone should be able to put their record before voters and let the voters decide.

As far as public employment in discretionary or policy-making positions, there does not need to be an exclusion, since those considerations are part of normal practices in hiring. If someone is not following accepted procedures by hiring unqualified relatives or other insiders, these should be handled as any improper hiring would be, whether recent related felony or unqualified relative.

[gdogslim]

This means EVERY politician would be excluded from holding office. Althought they may not have been prosecuted and convicted, they are all dishonest. [[ I'm not cynical am I).
But all politicians do lie.

[gnome]

If felons can't be prison guards, why should their bosses be allowed a pass?

[FoxyScholar10]

Can [[certain) felonies be expunged from records? If so, then this proposal is [[kind of) moot.

[gazhekwe]

Expungement is possible but limited. I believe it has to do with youth at time of crime and behavior since release. If it is expunged, the court has wiped the slate clean, and the felony is no longer of record.