The last page may have been turned in the contentious saga of Sen. Alicia “Chucky” Hansen and Adelbert Bryan, chairman of the St. Croix Elections Board, as District Court Judge Wilma Lewis issued an order that Hansen is eligible to run for the Legislature in November.
A hearing on the issue had been scheduled in Superior Court, but was moved to District Court where Lewis issued an order without hearing further arguments. According to the document, the order supersedes the court’s Sept. 12 temporary restraining order in the case.
That order directed Caroline Fawkes, defendant and supervisor of the V.I. Elections System, to place Hansen’s name back on the ballot. In her order Wednesday, Lewis determined that the pardon issued by Gov. John P. deJongh Jr. “removes any impediment” to Hansen’s eligibility under Section 6(b) of the Revised Organic Act.
The saga began after Hansen was convicted of three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file income tax returns in 2008. She successfully ran and was elected to the 29th and 30th Legislature. There was some grumbling in the community, but no legal action was taken.
In May, Hansen again was certified by Fawkes to run for the 31st Legislature in the November election. On May 19, Bryan filed a petition in the V.I. Superior Court arguing that she was ineligible to hold public office because her convictions constituted “crimes of moral turpitude.”
The Superior Court dismissed Bryan’s petition.
Bryan then appealed to the V.I. Supreme Court and on Aug. 28, the higher court agreed with Bryan and ordered Hansen’s name removed from the ballot. Fawkes notified Hansen of her disqualification on Sept. 2.
Hansen appealed to Gov. deJongh and was granted a pardon on Sept. 3. The Sept. 12 TRO ordered Hansen back on the ballot.
Judge Lewis’ opinion Wednesday said the pardon “restored a person’s civil rights” but “does not make amends for the past.”
“While rejecting a retroactive application of the pardon, the Court finds that the pardon removed the impediment to Sen. Hansen’s eligibility to be a member of the Legislature – as a person having been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude – from the date of the pardon forward,” according to Lewis’ memorandum.
Lewis commented on the Supreme Court ruling and said Hansen should have been allowed three days to file amended or new documents after Fawkes disqualified her the first time. She also commented that the Supreme Court’s written opinion had “no precedential or institutional value” and the “unpublished order is not considered by the Supreme Court to be binding precedent.”
According to Lewis, the court’s jurisdiction over the matter was justified because the plaintiffs alleged the refusal to place her on the ballot violated the Revised Organic Act of 1954.
Lewis also wrote that the Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court has discretion to permit candidates to amend their nomination documents.
As for Hansen’s current status, Lewis ruled that since the 30th Legislature held no hearings and took no action regarding the question of her eligibility to serve, the court “must follow legislative action.”
“Using this case as an example, in the future, the supervisor of Elections – guided by the Supreme Court’s Aug. 28, 2014, decision – will know that the crime of willful failure to file income tax returns is a crime involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, any candidate who presents nomination papers with such a qualification defect would, pursuant to Sec. 411(c), be notified of the defect by the supervisor and provided with the opportunity to cure,” Lewis ruled.
