Answers Needed in Laughton Case Before Special Election
City Clerk Paul Bergeron said clarification from the AG's office will determine how Nashua moves forward.
File: William Gaffney drops off new voters registrations from Ward 7 to City Clerk Paul Bergeron after the polls closed on Sept. 11, 2012.
Photos (1)
Photos
Adding a mind-bending twist to what has already been a wild election ride for Nashua voters would be this scenario:
Depending on how the state Attorney General's office defines the language of a state voting statute, it's feasible that Stacie Laughton and ex-wife Lisa Laughton, who both served time in jail for a felony conviction, could preside as ward selectmen over the special election required to fill the State Representative seat being vacated by Stacie Laughton.
Confusing? Yes, said City Clerk Paul Bergeron, who has been wading through the state's election law looking for answers since this unusual case took shape over the weekend.
On Tuesday Laughton, a newly elected state rep in District 31, announced she would resign – that decision came, after several days of controversy following a Laconia Daily Sun story published Nov. 23 chronicling Laughton's past, including a felony conviction and jail time.
Laughton, who is transgender and identifies as a female, was convicted in 2008 of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud under the name Barry C. Laughton Jr., while living in Laconia as a man.
Bergeron now awaits clarification from the state Attorney General's office on this passage of the statute, which reads in part:
A person sentenced for a felony, from the time of his sentence until his final discharge, may not:
- (a) Vote in an election, but if execution of sentence is suspended with or without the defendant being placed on probation or he is paroled after commitment to imprisonment, he may vote during the period of the suspension or parole; or
- (b) Become a candidate for or hold public office.
"The language of RSA NH RSA 607-A:2:1 needs defining – I can't find anything in New Hampshire state law defining the terms term 'final discharge' as it applies to this particular situation," Bergeron said Wednesday morning. "Other states do define the term, and not always in the same manner, and so we have to figure out what our interpretation is."
Bergeron said he has found that some state's define "final discharge" as the end of imprisonment, probation or parole. The grey area in Laughton's case is that, while she fulfilled the terms of her sentence and completed probation in 2010 for one of three felony charges, the other two sentences were suspended, pending 10 years of good behavior.
Depending on how the New Hampshire statute is interpreted will determine whether Stacie and Lisa Laughton, who were elected via write-in campaigns as Ward 4 selectmen, can continue to serve as selectmen.
If the AG determines that they were ineligible to hold elected office, then they will be replaced by appointment prior to the special election. That is also the determination which would nullify Laughton's election as a state representative, which was called into question Tuesday by an unnamed party, who filed an election law complaint with Senior Assistant Attorney General Michael Brown.
Brown said Tuesday that the case is a complicated one, and that he would continue to review the case, including court documents from Belknap County court, where Laughton was convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud.
Another point of order is when the State Rep vacancy can be declared, Bergeron said.
"Stacie Laughton will have to deliver a letter of resignation to the Secretary of State's office. However, since her term of office hasn't begun yet, I'm not sure when the vacancy is declared – that may not be until the start of the term, which would be in January," Bergeron said.
Once a letter is accepted by the Secretary of State, Nashua's Board of Aldermen would send a request to the governor's office to have a special election to fill the vacancy. That request would be fielded at the next regularly scheduled Executive Council meeting, which officially puts in motion the special election process.
If more than one candidate files for the open seat for each party, then a primary election would be necessary, Bergeron said.
"All of this could carry us right into the spring," Bergeron said. "On our end, it's a difference of a few weeks, whether the Board of Aldermen can ask for a special election in December of January. One way or another, that will happen within the next 2 to 6 weeks."
One Man Wolf Pack
11:00 am on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
So is it pretty fair to say that Nashua selectmen, er people, are FRAUDS?
No Longer interested
9:04 am on Thursday, November 29, 2012
No, not at all.
If you had read the article, you would understand that there is ambiguity regarding when final discharge has occurred.
One Man Wolf Pack
12:18 pm on Thursday, November 29, 2012
That is why she should be charged Ray. That way the court can here the matter and it can be straightened out. The only thing in question is her restitution and good behavior clauses of her sentence. Just because NHDOC is done with her does not mean her sentence is complete. She is not interested in even floowing the law. If she were she would have resigned or pettioned her original court about the matter. She has not and will not. This is not a shining example of representation; but exactly what Nashua desserves for its absolute partisan blindness and zero vetting as long as you see a "D" by the name. Where the tables turned you yourself would be in flames over this.
No Longer interested
2:39 pm on Thursday, November 29, 2012
Charlie,
makes no sense that she should be charged if the law is ambiguous. The AG needs to make an informed decision.
No, not absolute partisan blindness. I think that there is an issue here regarding whether society is willing to give wrong-doers a second chance.
One Man Wolf Pack
3:04 pm on Thursday, November 29, 2012
Hi Ray, there you go again. The AG has no basis for that decision and as this is new ground, which is precisely why the AG should charge her and put this before a court for a ruling to set a presidence. It is not for an AG to blindly deterimine the letter of the law but rather to look at case history to determine the allready established presidence. In order for a court to get involved it needs a case it needs a matter brought before it from which to provide a ruling. That ruling can then be contested on its merrit which may or may not include the actual validity of the law.
Make no mistake, I am not saying that "felons" should not be able to hold office; your point is very valid there. But that is not what is in question here. She has restitution and a period of good behavior as part of her sentence; most often if not followed other charges could be filed. Just because NHDOC is finished with the part of the sentence that she was remanded to that department to administer does not mean her sentence is complete. Take an oui offender, some of their sentence is imposed by the DMV and take that of a felon owning a firearm, that is administered by law enforcement.
Bottom line she has not completed her sentence and there is no ruling that NHDOC even has the authority to render the sentence complete. Which is EXACTLY why she should be charged and lets let the courts settle the matter!
No Longer interested
3:58 pm on Thursday, November 29, 2012
Charlie,
I was referring to the fact that the AG has to make a decision regarding whether to bring charges.
One Man Wolf Pack
4:23 pm on Thursday, November 29, 2012
Hey Ray, I don't think you get it. Read the statute.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/607-A/607-A-2.htm
Part a makes speciffic refference to the term of incarceration as for elligibility to vote while part B clearly says "Become a candidate for or hold public office". Reading the whoel statue is pretty clear when read "A person sentenced for a felony, from the time of his sentence until his final discharge, may not: Become a candidate for or hold public office"
One Man Wolf Pack
4:30 pm on Thursday, November 29, 2012
It gets even clearer when talking about an annulment.
http://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2010/titlelxii/chapter651/section651-5/
Section III talks about "has completed all the terms and conditions of the sentence and has thereafter been convicted of no other crime".
There is law to this effect in other areas of our statutes. Clearly other legislation already defined the completion of a sentence but it is not spelled out in ellection law. Wanna bet there is pressure from politics holding up an AG decsion? Charging her would set presidence just as is done with every newly tried law.
One Man Wolf Pack
4:33 pm on Thursday, November 29, 2012
Furthermore section III of the annulment statue clearly recognizes that the NHDOC is not the sole determinant of sentence completion.
One Man Wolf Pack
11:09 am on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
If she is holding office now as a Nashua Selectmen then hasn't she already broken election law once? Why isn't she being charged right now? We can get a decision / clarification on her case as soon as she gets to court! CHARGE HER!
Carol Robidoux
11:53 am on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
NH AG's office is reviewing the case to make a determination on how to interpret the legislation.
One Man Wolf Pack
4:32 pm on Thursday, November 29, 2012
the AGs office is reviewing political expiediancy as a way out it.
Seamus Carty
11:59 am on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Laughton should run again. It would be interesting to see how many voters would vote for him with all of the information about the conviction and incarceration available.
No Longer interested
9:09 am on Thursday, November 29, 2012
I think that's a good idea, because there are some people willing to give former convicts a second chance. The easy thing to do is to kick people when they are down.
At this point, obviously, trust is a big issue. But then again, trust is always an issue when it comes to politicians, is it not?
However, if the determination is that she is ineligible to hold office, then she would not be able to do so until fully discharged.
P.Robison
7:50 pm on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Would not make sense for her to run if indeed the A.G's office finds she isn't eligible to run for any office for another 6 years, will be interesting to see if she could stay out of trouble that long.
One Man Wolf Pack
4:41 pm on Thursday, November 29, 2012
It is not for the AG's office to decide. There is not presidence in election law. Which is why charges have to be brought to set presidence.
One Man Wolf Pack
4:34 pm on Thursday, November 29, 2012
How did this get by the registration process to be a candidate? Who runs that a democrat?
P.Robison
4:48 pm on Thursday, November 29, 2012
So if charges are brought against her again does that mean she is in Violation for her suspended sentences? They are Suspended pending good behavior, wouldn't call new charges being that.