Eugene Volokh notes that this question of law has come up once before in Texas:
But the court said:
Volokh concludes:
She is the Travis County District Attorney. As things currently stand, the head of the Public Integrity Unity is whoever is the DA of Travis County. I would expect that however this shakes out, the whole system is likely to be revisited by the Legislature in their next session.
Also, that’s why he can’t just fire her. County DA is an elected position. But if she resigns, he’d get to appoint the interim replacement until the next election for that seat, which is in 2016. Lehmberg has already announced that she will not run again.
Except that Lehmberg was elected- the people appointed her, not the executive. If we’re talking about, say, a President firing his Secretary of State, I think he can do that for any reason- that’s the President’s appointee. Or, if we are talking about an executive vetoing legislation, they can do that. But apparently the executive can’t attach strings to his decision to veto that include driving an elected DA out of office, or else.
Or, what Irishman said. Anyway, innocent until proven guilty…
I heard there was a third count of the indictment but the prosecutor couldn’t remember it.
Don’t know how this will play out, don’t much care. Perry never was a threat to win the 2016 nomination. Just my opinion that withholding funds from an agency unless the head quits is a dickish move. Presumably the agency benefits the people so defunding it would hurt the citizens of the state plus the workers employed by the agency. Sounds like a hostage maneuver to me- if the agency head resigns, nobody gets hurt.
The Public Integrity Unit committed no crime, so that’s no justification for its funding being cut. The person who heads the PIU did commit a crime, but Perry wasn’t threatening her funding, he was threatening her agency’s.
One must also ask: Did Perry start pressuring her to resign when the DUI came to light, or when the PIU started investigating one of his pet projects? Has he put pressure to resign on any other state officials who have been found guilty of DUI?
I think it’s important to point out that Perry’s efforts to harm one person in the Public Integrity Unit also resulted in job losses for 20 (!) other people.
Yes, Lehmberg was wrong and she was also punished appropriately- she served time, paid a fine, and enrolled in a substance abuse program.
It doesn’t matter if Perry thinks she is unfit to head her office. She is an elected official and Perry cannot fire elected officials. So he attempted to shut down the whole office.
Lehmberg has already announced that she will complete her appointment and not run again for the office she now holds. Perry claims she and her office have lost ‘public trust,’ but that’s a matter of opinion. By all accounts, she is good at her job.
He told her that if she didn’t resign, he would cut funding for the Public Integrity Office. He did exactly that. That is what is illegal- he threatened her and the unit, attempted to coerce her into quitting, then followed through on the threat.
Republicans have had their guns out for the Public Integrity Office for a long time and Perry is using Lehmberg’s drunk driving conviction as an excuse to dismantle the whole unit. The county picked up some of the funding for the unit, but can’t replace the whole budget.
And, with the loss of 20 employees and reduced funding, the office has lost a great deal of it’s ability to monitor for government corruption.
And Hanson?
As in “Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression.”
According to KUT’s timeline of events, http://kut.org/post/timeline-governor-rick-perrys-felony-indictment, the arrest came in mid-April, and in June, Rick Perry started to call for Lehmberg to step down.
What is more to the point is that Republicans have tried to take power and funding away from the Public Integrity Unit several times over the years (and no wonder-- in addition to investigating Rick Perry’s pet political project, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT), the Public Integrity Unit also prosecuted former US House Majority Leader Tom DeLay).
For instance, in 2012,the Texas Ethics Commission tried to get the legislature to move the power to investigate political corruption from the Travis County DA’s office (which contains the Public Integrity Unit) to the Texas Ethics Commission. The Travis County DA’s office is headed by elected officials, whilethe comissioners of the Texas Ethics Commission are appointed by the Governor, the Lt. Governor, and the Speaker of the House, in other words, the very people that they might be called to prosecute. No conflict of interest there! And this development took place right as the Dallas Morning News uncovered the possible corruption at the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas, and the Progress Texas Political Action Committee called on the Public Integrity Unit to investigate.
To recap: it is very difficult for me to believe that Rick Perry threatening to veto funding for the Public Integrity Unit was not politically motivated-- the unit was in a good position to uncover misuse of funds, which would get Rick Perry in trouble, and forcing Lehmberg to resign would allow Perry to pick a replacement who would be more friendly to him. Republicans had already tried this tactic once before, in 2012, when they tried to shift power from the Public Integrity Unit to the Texas Ethics Commission, where fully half of the leadership was appointed directly by the governor. Lehmberg’s DUI just provided a convenient fig leaf.
Right.
Of course, that goes only to Count II of the indictment.
I have no problem believing it was politically motivated.
Was it illegal?
While this may be true and as much as Perry is a total dick, it seems like this indictment won’t go very far. The link Bricker provided upthread seems to support the position that Perry’s actions aren’t criminal. Shitty, yeah, but not a felony.
Pity.
Even David Axelrod thinks the indictment is “pretty sketchy”.
Wonder if the indicting prosecutor can be indicted for “abuse of official capacity”? That case would be a lot more justified than the one against Perry.
Agree, it’s a dick move. And I’m no fan of Governor Perry. And, I’ve no fear of him getting the nomination for President. But, I can’t understand how this is a crime. He wanted to defend this agency. He had a right to veto funding of it, but didn’t want the political fall out. DA got into some hot water, he made an offer she couldn’t accept. He vetoed funding.
He didn’t want to defend the agency, he wanted it to stop doing it’s job. As pointed out upthread, he has no business trying to force an elected official out of office.
How is withholding funding because someone refuses to do the right thing okay?
See Bricker’s court decision reference. “Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression.”
Damn typo. I meant “defund” not Defend.
I agree, it’s a bad thing he did. But it’s a bad political thing, not a bad “illegal” thing.
It reflects badly on him as a Governor and a person, but I don’t see it as a crime. People ask elected officials to resign all the time. Hell, I’m willing to ask Perry to resign.
Look at it this way, would it be a crime for Boehner to say, “I’m going to vote to repeal the ACA unless Obama resigns this year.” He wants to repeal the ACA. He doesn’t like Obama. Why can’t he do that?
Perry is one person and can defund on his whim. Boehner has to get a large enough number of other people to vote.
Okay, I see that. So, could Obama say “I’m really troubled by the provisions in the Farm Bill, and I think I will veto it. However, if the House would pick a new Speaker that I could work with to better govern our great nation, I can live with the Bill as written.”
Is that really a crime?
Would you be okay with someone spending 10 years in prison for such conduct?
I think Rick Perry is one of the worst people in politics today. I would love to see him disgraced and then forgotten. But I don’t see his conduct as criminal.