Redemption is beautiful. And a lot rarer than we’d like it to be.

Maryland belongs in the elite group of states—Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Alaska, D.C. of course, and a few others—where corruption at the local government level is the status quo, and seemingly will always be so. Thus what could have been a straightforward dilemma regarding the character requirements for public office—does a criminal past render a citizen unfit for appointment?—has been confounded by matters of comparative disqualification. Maryland State Delegate Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George’s County) took money out of her campaign funds to pay for her wedding expenses, and stole $800 from the General Assembly to pay an employee of her law firm. She cut a deal with prosecutors to avoid a trial, and, astoundingly, is arguing that since she thus avoided a “conviction” for a crime, under Maryland law she should be able to continue serving as delegate.

Alston is a current crook. Maryland Democrats decided to designate a past crook as her replacement: Greg Hall, who twenty years ago was a crack dealer, spent time in prison, and barely avoided a murder charge for the death of a thirteen-year-old boy killed in the cross-fire of a gun battle he was engaged in. Only in a state like Maryland would Hall be considered an upgrade over the current occupant of a legislative seat, and Maryland’s Democratic governor, Martin O’Malley, has so far refused to follow his party’s directive and seat Hall. The problem is that under the Maryland Constitution, O’Malley has no choice in the matter: it says that the governor shall appoint whomever the party designates to replace a delegate who has been removed. Now there will be two hearings, one to determine whether Alston is correct that she can remain in office because she hasn’t technically been “convicted” of crimes she has admitted to, and another to determine whether the governor can refuse to appoint a convicted felon to take her place.

Whatever the court says, Alston’s position is ethically untenable. O’Malley’s? The Washington Post made two arguments this morning against O’Malley’s refusal to appoint Hall. One of them, which is enough, is iron-clad: the Maryland Constitution is clear, and O’Malley has no choice in the matter.

If he could block Hall’s selection, however, I think O’Malley would be ethical—fair, responsible— to do so. Is the Maryland Democratic Party really so devoid of honest citizens that it must replace a thief with a convicted drug-dealer? The people of Maryland deserve better; the citizens of any state deserve better. O’Malley is being attacked with the predictable argument that his opposition to Hall shows his lack of belief in the principle of redemption. As the Post’s defense of Hall demonstrates, however, Hall has hardly done everything possible to justify public trust: he is in arrears at least $9,000 in back taxes, and has been charged twice with buying cars at auction with invalid temporary tags. Writes the Post: “…he’s done a good deal more than many ex-convicts to make amends.” Yes, and he’s probably more trustworthy than the crook he’d be replacing—this is an endorsement? Redemption is highly over-rated, as the recidivism rates and the love life of Bill Clinton suggest. Genuine redemption is as rare as the Carolina cougar, and its fake version is frequently invoked by scoundrels, like former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, who want another shot at power. Nor does a belief in redemption require that we give the theoretically redeemed our bank account numbers and the keys to our cars. A belief in redemption does not require Governor O’Malley to approve of a former drug dealer acquiring the status of lawmaker.

The law, however, apparently does.

_____________________________________

Sources: Washington Post 1, 2, 3, 4

Graphic: Script Shadow