Rick Perry’s indictment reveals the fallibility of US justice
It would be wrong for charges against the Texas governor to be allowed through the courts
Texas governors are a local taste. Handsome, ebullient, lucky enough to govern an oil state in times of rocketing commodity prices, Rick Perry has been elected again and again since replacing George W Bush after the latter was elected president in 2000.
But a magazine once described Mr Perry as “probably not what Plato had in mind when he wrote that republics should be ruled by philosopher-kings”. His malapropisms, memory lapses and inability to read his party’s national mood (he called its stance on immigration “heartless”) made him a laughing stock when he sought the presidential nomination in 2012.
ON THIS STORY
- Charges threaten Perry presidential hopes
- Edward Luce GOP foreign policy realism
- Christopher Caldwell Obama’s border woes
- Texas governor indicted on alleged misuse of power
ON THIS TOPIC
- Analysis An unhealthy state
- Perry warms to Huawei
- Jurek Martin Reprogramming Rick Perry
- Texas governor eyes White House bid
CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL
- Uber’s tale-teller
- Christopher Caldwell The trouble with trolls
- Justice tarnished
- OKCupid’s poisoned arrow
This year there has been a reversal. He has made headway reintroducing himself to Republicans across the country, and has a chance of winding up in the White House. But, having fallen foul of legal activists, he now finds himself under indictment in his own state capital, Austin, and has a chance of winding up in jail.
The charges look weak. They arise from the arrest of Rosemary Lehmberg, Travis County attorney-general and a Democrat, for drunk-driving in April 2013. The embarrassing police video of the incident has been much viewed online. Ms Lehmberg pleaded guilty, served 45 days in jail and reportedly sobered up, but Mr Perry pressed her to resign, saying he would cut off $7.5m in state funding to her office if she did not. That is where it gets interesting.
Travis is one of 254 Texas counties but it contains Austin, home not just of the capitol (and thus of the state’s politicians) but also of the state university (and thus of its upper-crust left). The funding Mr Perry was cutting was for the county’s public integrity unit, a local office empowered to prosecute state politicians. Here we arrive at an important part of a larger problem.
The Democratic stronghold of Austin gets to police all politics in this reliably Republican state. This is a problem that well-designed constitutions take pains to avoid. It was to prevent local officials from harassing national ones that republics such as Australia and the US removed their federal capitals from the control of any state government.
An important aspect of the arrest tapes has been largely ignored in the press. Ms Lehmberg, contrary to reports, is not especially bellicose in custody, particularly considering her reported blood-alcohol level. As she begins to panic about the effect on her career, in fact, one’s heart goes out to her. The problem is that she keeps pulling rank. Ms Lehmberg reminds the officers of the Travis County sheriff’s department that she is on familiar terms with their boss, Greg Hamilton, the Travis County sheriff: “Have y’all called Greg?” These words are relevant to Mr Perry’s insistence that she quit. Ms Lehmberg has made many Republican enemies but until the arrest the governor had not been prominent among them.
His problems are only those of the wider society, set in bold relief
Texas is not the only southern state that allows local bureaucrats big prerogatives. But this indictment of Mr Perry is unusually illogical. It reveals a bizarre idea of the control that politicians can exercise over government money. Mr Perry is accused of having “intentionally or knowingly misused government property”. Penalties for that can reach 99 years. The law is clearly meant to keep politicians from selling off mineral rights or fencing the art collection in the governor’s mansion or paying prostitutes with money meant for office furniture.
In this case, the “property” is the money voted for the public integrity unit, which the governor is under no obligation to approve. He is being indicted for vetoing a budgetary bill.
He is also accused of “coercion” for his initial threat to veto the bill. Attempts by one branch of government to intimidate another, as Mr Perry is alleged to have done with his veto threat, can in theory become unconstitutional. But not here. In the Texas case, questions of constitutional theory are complicated by the fact that Mr Perry and Ms Lehmberg are operating at different levels of government, one at state level, the other at county level.
Newspapers have called for the case to be allowed to work its way through the courts. That would be wrong. While justice can be authoritative, it is never infallible. Mr Perry is in trouble, and nothing we have seen so far indicates he has committed any crime.
His problems are only those of the wider society, set in bold relief. That prosecutors pressed criminal charges is a sign that, in the US, the campaign trail too often runs through the courtroom. That a “grand jury” – a group of ordinary Americans picked to assess the merits of a case – approved the charges is a sign that Americans are losing sight of the rules meant to govern their politics in the first place.
The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard
No comments:
Post a Comment