1) It's not a smear to point out that your opponent is mentally unbalanced and a criminal, if it is true. Anyone looking at the recent linked Laconia Sun piece can come to a judgement on that.
2) Reading the newspaper (or using Google) won't help you if the person in question has changed their name, unless the name-change was itself in the news.
3) With over 400 State Reps, few get the sort of attention you assume should be standard. Her district leans sufficiently Democratic that it would be a very low priority to engage in opposition research there.
4) The voters of the district are the ones who have "bought" her.

Hey Dave,
Don't you mean former criminal?

And I didn't know you were qualified to diagnose whether a person is mentally unbalanced or not?

And maybe that's why the district leans Democratic, the Republicans maybe have a low priority to engage opposition, sort of a self fullfilling prophecy.

You make a good argument for why she should not be impeached. It's not such a good argument for why we should not be disgusted with her, or for why she should not be asked or encouraged to resign.

you made a very good statement. im not understanding why people serve their time they are still punished by goverment, its time the prison doors close

Actually Ms. Laughtons Felony Sentences were " Suspended", sure she served 4 Months in Jail but she has 6 more years to go before she could Legally run for office. It seems she consulted an Attorney as well who told her she had a weak case should she want to fight it.
Seems fair to me,

Right Fred. I am sure that 1,558 people are blind to that fact too in Ward 4. Of course it is funny that Pete Silva didn't ask the GOP State Rep Gary Wheaton, of Seabrook of being convicted of driving on a suspended license, or Windham's State Rep, Charles McMahon who was arrested for obstructing the report of a crime or injury. He won't resign, and Pete Silva isn't there to force him to resign.

So where's the problem? The GOP takes care of its own, and other political parties have to live by a different law? Try again Fred, you sound as dumb as the rest of your minions.

Yes! I see the big problem when it was found out that J.W. Bush lied about his felony conviction (drunk driving) on his petition for being a candidate for the presidency I did not hear about your sadness. Well, we all know now he was not qualified for any national office.....

Dan Shapira: Thanks, I was being sarcastic with my response. I knew the attorney up in Maine who pulled up W's drunk driving arrests in the 2000 election.

And in addition, I would add that maybe we need candidates to take a drug test, and sobriety test, before they are are allowed to take public office.

Voters should be aware of these things. You can never be too sure.

I thought our previous president, a republican, lied on his application to 'spare his daughters from embarrassment'. Wasn't he caught driving drunk and thrown in the slammer for one night?

Babette, I don't believe there's an official application for President where the candidate is asked for his criminal history. (And we know there isn't one for NH state Rep.) Please correct me if I am wrong with the name of this application or a link.

Dan,
People lose rights for felony convictions. Not for arrests. Nevertheless, many politicians of both parties have resigned (voluntarily, albeit under pressure) prior to or in the absence of any conviction (e.g., Newt Gingrich; Mark Foley, but not Gerry Studds; Jim McGreevey; Ken Ard). I do not know of any prior examples where a politician won office with a criminal record unknown to the public due to a name change. Since McMahon has credibly claimed that he has done nothing illegal or wrong, it is silly to expect him to resign or to criticize others for not calling for him to reason.

They didn't even have a full ticket running against Laughton and the two they did run were a Lunch Lady and a Slum Lord(Nothing against Lunch Ladies or Slum Lords)

Yeah, because the Democrats researched the background of 400+ Republican candidates to the extent that they would have found a name change? Kinda hard to Google that, unless the name change made the news.

2010 ran as Barry "Stacie" Laughton on the ballot. We aren't talking about somebody hiding in the shadows, we are talking about a transgender candidate that has been running for public office in New Hampshire for years. If the NH Republican party couldn't figure this one out before the election, then that is what I was talking about in regards to that they should just hang their collective heads in shame for now coming after this person simply because the party took such a battering on the state and national levels in this past election cycle.

And as far as Democrats, point out one example where a Republican who was just elected is now being asked to step down for any reason for facts being discovered after the fact?

Watts,
According to the Laconia story linked above, she ran in a district where the Democrats' winning is pretty much a foregone conclusion. So it is not surprising that Republicans put little effort into opposition research.

It is of course Democrats, not Republicans, who are actually putting real pressure on her to resign. They needn't care about her one vote, but they do not want to be associated with her background (I mean the felonies and the real or feigned mental illness, not her transgender status).

Felon's can vote Roberta.

Laws on felon voting and running for office are set at the state level. Most, but not all, states allow felons to vote once their sentences are completed.

There is an important reason to not prevent felons from running for office: Any such restriction would give a government strong incentive to prosecute its political opponents, even if such prosecution is corrupt or disproportionate to what a person who is not a political opponent would receive. A system with such restrictions would also increase the appearance of such corruption even in good-faith prosecutions of a politicians. Also, if the people know of a politician's criminal record, they may rightfully choose to discount it, if they think the law is stupid or the prosecution unjust.

Dear Mr Duncan, or Lizy rather... The proper pronoun that one would use when referring to a woman or someone that identifies as female would be "Her". Not "his" or "her(his)" as you felt necessary to use in your post. Your post, illuminating the fact that you have significantly less than a firm grasp on basic grammar and at most a first grade understanding of the English language, made me want to jump in and "help" you by pointing out your glaring mistake. Hopefully this will serve to keep you from further embarrassing yourself should you ever feel the need to post again. Even though your post was extremely insensitive, rude and beyond disrespectful to Miss Laughton as well as anyone else (such as myself) in the Transgender community worldwide, I do applaud you Sir for taking the training wheels off and trying to sound like you have some idea of what is going on. It's good to see a gentleman like yourself trying to at least put across the illusion that you keep abreast (no gender pun intended) of current events and know what is going on... Even though you missed your mark and failed miserably in your efforts, I guess a girl like me can't blame a guy like you for trying can I? Better luck next time and good evening to you Sir.

Please refer to David Pittelli post, just a few posts up from this to see exactly why it is not crazy.

"Ms. Laughton does not seem to respect the Laws why should she be taking part in making Laws for the rest of us to abide by?"

Yeah, because God forbid that anybody who ever broke the speed limit or smoked a joint or drank a beer before the legal drinking age or downloaded a copyrighted song or dropped a popsicle stick or jaywalked or bummed a pain pain pill (or any such prescribed medicine) from a friend's personal prescription or any of the other multitude of ways that people compromise their adherence to the law when their personal circumstances either call for it or that it conveniences them.

Your analysis is either grossly naive or grossly ignorant of the realities of this world.

Watts,
Have you read the Laconia Daily Sun article? Unless you think the Sun is libeling her, I think it is pretty clear that most people would say she disqualified herself in a way that the "criminals" you described have generally not. Speeding and jaywalking are civil offenses, not crimes, and all the other ones you mention are victimless crimes (joint, beer, pill) or both minor and almost universal (littering, downloading). None of these would lead to jail time unless repeated or scaled up (say, selling joints or pills or illegal downloads).

You actually condemn her with your choice of "crimes" because you don't mention the sort of real crimes (premeditated felonies) and the selfish, crazy behavior which she (according to the Sun) engaged in, because you know that her crimes don't arouse sympathy.

Valjean:

First off, Ray Buckley, who is one of the first openly gay State Political Party chairperson in the country, had suggested that she probably should resign and come back in another 2 or 4 years. There are some legal, if not some ethical questions about whether or not she was honest about running for office. With that said, it seemed as if this were never an issue (and she said that it "didn't define who she was"). She needed to be more open about this in the first place. As for her being the blame that the city will have to have maybe 2 elections for that seat, that is WRONG, as the state law that caused this mess was far from being perfect. Lastly, I think that Stacie needs to have more than a Certificate in Culinary Arts in her background. Her ability to communicate effectively may work in Ward 4, but may not work well in the State Capitol. I wish that this would propel some standard for representation in Concord, to bring younger people in the fray. $200 a term is hardly worth anyones time, and what you got 2 years ago shows that there needs to be some changes to bring New Hampshire out of the stone ages..