• Home
  • News
    • Politics & Government
    • Business & Economy
    • Crime / Courts
    • Health / Medicine
  • Sports
    • High School Sports
    • Radio Iowa Poll
  • Affiliates
    • Affiliate Support Page
  • Contact Us
    • Reporters

Radio Iowa

Iowa's Radio News Network

You are here: Home / Crime / Courts / Supreme Court to decide if drunking driving keeps candidate off ballot

Supreme Court to decide if drunking driving keeps candidate off ballot

April 10, 2014 By Dar Danielson

The Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on a case that could impact the ability of thousands of potential candidates for public office. The case centers on a challenge from Democrat Ned Chiodo who says fellow Democrat Tony Bisignano should ineligible to run in the primary for a state senate seat in Des Moines after his conviction for second-offense drunk driving.

A review panel led by Attorney General Tom Miller voted 3-0 on March 21st to allow Bisignano on the ballot. The Supreme Court arguments centered on whether a second OWI rises to the level of what’s called an “infamous crime.”

Chido’s attorney, Gary Dickey, argued the definition is based on the penalty. “So, when you ask and ordinary person ‘what separates an infamous from a non-infamous’ I think it would be understandable for a person to say those most severe or those offenses that are subject to imprisonment, as opposed to some other type of punishment,” Dickey says. “That’s entirely reasonable rather than looking at the actual offense conduct of a specific crime.”

Dickey says while the right to vote is important, society has determined that right can be taken away in certain cases. “It’s entirely reasonable to take a look at it from the social contract perspective and to conclude that our framers intended individuals who couldn’t conform their behavior for crimes for which punishment are severe, are not entitle to the right to vote or hold public office,” Dickey says.

Joseph Glazebrook represents Bisignano, and says the interpretations of crimes and their severity have changed. “Part of the problem here in focusing on punishment is that he is asking you to apply a test to these words without considering what they meant in 1916 or 1957 when they were written and when they were adopted,” Glasebrook says.

Justice Wiggins asked Glazebrook about interpretation of crimes. “Why wouldn’t theft in the third-degree be infamous, and theft in the fourth degree is under the way you want us to construe it?  Tell me what the difference is if you steal a thousand dollars or a thousand one dollars?,” Wiggins asked. “If you are just looking at the type of the crime as defined by the legislature, it’s different,” Glazebrook replied. “If you are looking at the measure of infamy or moral turpitude — I guess if you put it a on a scale and you take more, you steal more, it’s different as well.”

The Iowa Supreme Court agreed to hear the case right away, as election officials say they will begin putting the ballots together for the primary next week.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Filed Under: Crime / Courts, News Tagged With: Democratic Party, Legislature

Featured Stories

Governor signs Iowa Renewable Fuels Standard into law

Jury returns guilty verdict in shooting death of State Trooper

Summit has easements for 20% of carbon pipeline route through Iowa

Morel mushroom hunters on hold without warmer conditions

Trinity Health aquiring all MercyOne health properties

TwitterFacebook
Tweets by RadioIowa

Iowa Special Olympics Summer games set to open in Ames

Radio Iowa/Baseball Coaches Association High School Poll 5/16/22

Iowa assistant coach Kirk Speraw to retire

Northern Iowa prepares for Missouri Valley Conference softball tournament

T.J. Otzelberger announces staff changes at Iowa State

More Sports

eNews and Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Learfield News & Ag, LLC