Six days ago State Senator Rod Wright was found guilty by a jury of eight felony counts — some for perjury and some for voter fraud. All of the counts stem from the successful prosecuting of Wright by the Los Angeles County District Attorneys office for basically not residing in the Senate District he represents. If the judge were to “throw the book” at Wright he could spend as long as eight years in prison. In all likelihood it would be much less than that. Sentencing has been set for March 12.
The next day I published an editorial the gist of which was that if Senator Wright does not resign he must be removed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. I was not alone in calling for this action — the Sacramento Bee Editorial Board weighed in as well. On Thursday morning the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times also joined what has been a lonely troika of sorts on the subject — everyone else has been eerily silent on the matter. Most notably almost all of the members of the California legislature.
Last Thursday Senate President Darrell Steinberg announced, after holding a private meeting that included only Senate Democrats, that he would not call for a vote to remove Wright until the March sentencing date comes when Steinberg says the judge will rule on his appeal. This, of course, makes no sense. All that happens is that after Wright is sentenced on March 12, then he can file an appeal of the court decision. That appeal could take months or a year or more. Traditionally successful reversing a lower-court decision through an appeal is a very tall order — among other reasons because in an appeal you can only use facts and evidence that were brought forward in the original trial. So it really begs the question of whether it is the intention of Senator Steinberg, if say Wright is told that he can remain free during his appeal process, if Steinberg would then advocate having him stay in the Senate even longer.
Steinberg did strip Wright of the Chairmanship of the Government Organization Committee — a powerful Senate committee. But Wright continues to retain memberships on key committees. Juxtapose this with the treatment of Senator Ron Calderon — who of course has been implicated in very specific ways in an FBI sting operation. But as of today no formal charges have been filed by Calderon. But in his case Calderon was stripped of all of his committee assignments.
Unbelievably this plan to keep Wright serving in the Senate at least through March 12th (during which time he will be collecting a salary and benefits, and authoring as well as voting upon pieces of legislation is not just a Steinberg plan) — it carries with it a bipartisan patina as Senate GOP Leader Bob Huff was quoted in the Los Angeles Times saying, “The removal of Senator Wright from his committee chairmanship is appropriate. The Senate will be able to make more informed decisions once the sentencing process is completed in March.”
Um, no thank you.
But wait, there’s more. While Steinberg, Huff and others are providing high-cover for the Senator to continue to serve in office, Wright, last Thursday, introduces a new piece of legislation, SB 929, which stunningly would allow certain convicted non-violent felons (including now Wright himself) to, under certain circumstances, petition a judge to have those felonies reduced to misdemeanors. Steinberg’s office, when asked about the legislation by the press, made it clear that this was a bad idea on Wright’s part, and made it clear the bill would be killed without a hearing. But that’s all Steinberg did. Even faced with such hubris by Wright, still Steinberg has not said he would schedule a removal vote in the near future.
Speaking for myself I have now had an opportunity to talk about this issue on television interviews in both northern and southern California, as well as on talk radio — and in all of those interviews I felt compelled to say that one cannot help but feel that the members of the California State Legislature are above the law, and need not respond swiftly to the fact that there is now a convicted felon amongst them.
Over the weekend the Sacramento Bee came out with a second hard-hitting editorial, for which I applaud them, once again calling for Wright’s swift removal, and highlighting the ludicrous introduced by Wright of SB 929. Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters pens a critical column today.
Now as the “It’s Wrong Not To Remove Wright” scandal moves into its second week — I think attention will move away from the leadership and to all of the rank and file members of the State Senate, each of whom bears some responsibility for Wright continuing to serve. Any of them have the ability to rise on the Senate floor and demand a vote of removal for Wright.
One might be especially interested in whether those Senators who are running in tough races this year will be the first to speak out…
Senators Alex Pedilla and Leland Yee are battling it out (with others) to be Secretary of State. Interesting that they want to be California’s top election official but are silent on a felon serving in the Senate. Senator Ted Gaines is running for State Insurance Commissioner. Senator Mark Wyland is in a tough, contested primary for the Board of Equalization. Running for Congress are Senators Mark DeSaulnier, Ellen Corbett, Steve Knight, Ted Lieu, and Mimi Walters. Waiting to run for OC Supervisor is Senator Lou Correa. And of course Senators Cannella and Vidak are facing re-election this Fall in very competitive districts. As of now — they have all been very…quiet.
Of course Members of the Assembly could weigh in as well, if they aren’t busy hiding behind their desks and trying not to be pinned down by a reporter.
In closing, Senator Wright should resign — like right now. But clearly that is not his plan. I don’t necessarily blame him as he has raised six figures into a legal defense fund by fleecing the Third House, which presumably comes to an end with his removal from office. In the absence of Wright voluntary going, there should be a removal vote taken today. If not, a Senator should make the motion and then let’s see who votes for and against it. But at least then there is transparency — and maybe a glimmer of hope that the Senate doesn’t feel that it is above the law after all.