Calif. Senate suspends 3 Dems
SACRAMENTO — The California Senate voted on Friday to suspend three lawmakers charged in separate criminal cases when the latest one to be hauled into court refused to step down, the most serious house-cleaning action the chamber has taken in more than a century.
Friday's 28-1 vote in the 40-member chamber was tallied amid one of the most severe ethical crises in modern times for the Legislature in the nation's most populous state.
The Senate leadership said that before Friday, the chamber had never suspended a lawmaker in the institution's 164-year history, but it has taken the more serious step of expelling lawmakers, the last time in 1905. The Assembly speaker's office said that chamber has never suspended or expelled a lawmaker.
The resolution prevents Democratic Sens. Ron Calderon, Leland Yee and Rod Wright from exercising any power of their office until the pending criminal cases against them have been resolved. Even so, they will continue receiving their $95,291 annual salaries.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento acknowledged the public criticism of the chamber but defended his leadership and the integrity of the 37 senators who have not run afoul of the law. Nevertheless, he said he has been shocked by having 7 percent of the chamber be charged with felonies this year, which will be his last as leader.
“One is an anomaly, two is a coincidence. Three? That's not what this Senate is about,” Steinberg said to lawmakers before the vote.
Yee, who had championed gun control legislation, is the latest of the three senators to be charged. The San Francisco Democrat was charged in a federal criminal complaint this week with accepting bribes and coordinating an international gun-running operation.
Yee's attorney, Paul F. DeMeester, issued a statement immediately after the Senate vote saying suspension was “the right step for now” because it acknowledges the presumption of innocence. Representatives for Calderon and Wright said they would have no immediate comment on the suspension vote.
Steinberg noted that the Senate already has “intensive” ethics training for its lawmakers and staff.
“But there are some things, members, that you just can't teach,” he said. “I know of no ethics class that teaches about the illegality or the danger of gun-running or other such sordid activities.”
Steinberg also announced an unprecedented step of cancelling a Senate floor session in April for a mandatory ethics review, saying it is time for the Senate to “take a deeper look at our culture.”
Senate officials will go office-by-office to emphasize ethical conduct and to ask staffers to come forward if they are aware of any unethical or potentially criminal activity by lawmakers or Senate staffers.
The lone lawmaker to vote against the resolution, SR38, was Republican Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine. One senator was present but did not vote, and nine were absent, including all three senators who were suspended. One seat is vacant.
Anderson argued that all three should be expelled outright and said it was wrong that they should continue receiving their salaries when facing such serious charges.
“If you reward bad behavior, you will get more of it,” Anderson said.
Calderon and Wright previously took leaves of absence, which also let them keep their pay. The California Constitution says lawmakers can lose their pay only if they are expelled or resign.
The suspensions drop Senate Democrats below the two-thirds majority they won in the last election, a supermajority that allowed them to act in all matters without needing support from Republicans.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.