Nobody is talking about preventing felons from holding office; the problem is SHE IS STILL SERVING OUT HER SENTENCE!

Charlie W,
1) I agree that under the law it appears that she is still under sentence, and thus ineligible for her office. I'm not sure that that's a good law, for the reasons I stated above, especially once a felon is out of jail and even probation, and "under sentence" in only a nominal way.
2) That said, I think there ought to be a law requiring candidates to disclose felony convictions and aliases and name changes, and in the absence of such a law, I think there is a moral obligation to do so (i.e., the voters have a right to be disgusted over her failure to do so).
3) Since there is not such a #2-type law now, it is probably a good thing that she got caught up in the #1-type law, even though that law is itself problematic for being a bit over-broad.

A bit overboard? Whats next a serial rapist to head up the state police? She is still serving her sentence, she has not finished restitution and you think it is appropriate that she has a hand in legislating the very laws for which she is still currently serving sentence? I can't believe what I am reading! Talk about the fox watching the hen house!!!!!

Charlie,
1) "over-broad" -- not overboard.
2) It is because she is no longer in jail or even on probation that the law is ambiguous; that is to say, no one knows if she'd win her seat if she hired a lawyer and fought it. And if the law would keep her out of office because of her uncompleted "sentence," then it is over-broad. The expense of jailing people or even keeping up with them in probation is one thing that limits the government's power to call us all criminals and treat us as if we had no rights. Her continued "sentence" appears to be pro-forma, as in it has no effect upon her except to limit some of her rights, notably to run for office. All that said, given her unusual circumstance (of keeping a felony conviction unknown to voters due to a name change), it is a good thing she is resigning.
3) As I stated in another article on Patch, "There is an important reason to not prevent felons from running for office: Any such restriction would give a government strong incentive to prosecute its political opponents, even if such prosecution is corrupt or disproportionate to what a person who is not a political opponent would receive. A system with such restrictions would also increase the appearance of such corruption even in good-faith prosecutions of a politicians. Also, if the people know of a politician's criminal record, they may rightfully choose to discount it, if they think the law is stupid or the prosecution unjust."

Ray,
1) There is nothing ambiguous or novel about the notion that felony convictions may lead to the loss of certain rights (to arms; to vote or hold office, in many states) or that voters should know of a politician's felony conviction(s). ("Felony" and "conviction" are well-defined unambiguous terms.)
2) The legal troubles of Tierney were well-known to any of his constituents who cared to be even minimally informed about the election. It would be fair for them to consider that when voting; the actions of one's relatives should not of themselves be impeachable.
3) Obama did disclose his drug use (as did Clinton, minimally). The voters were free to consider their pasts when voting for President. Ms Laughton did not do so. (Although I understand her legal troubles now come from the terms of her sentence being ongoing, not with her nondisclosure.)
4) "Reports" are not the same thing as convictions. (BTW, there is more evidence that Clinton did cocaine than there is that Bush did.)

Dave,
1. The felony conviction aside, according to Horn, the issue is "her right to know" about Laughton's past.
2. Horn said that relatives should not be in play in an election, it's irrelevant whether or not they were "well known" before hand.
3. George W. nor Clinton didn't disclose their drug use ahead.
4. "Reports" are irrelevant, according to Horn, a candidate should be upfront.

Ray,
1) But that's just it, Horn doesn't claim a right to know everything, she claims a right to know about felony convictions, and perhaps other unstated "significant and important piece[s] of her history."

3) FWIW, Clinton did acknowledge smoking marijuana ("I didn't inhale and I didn't try it again") several months before his 1992 election. He did not acknowledge doing the cocaine that his brother and two other acquaintances said he was a heavy user of. Bush did not acknowledge any drug use beyond alcohol, but we have less reason to believe that he did any. But none of this is all that on-topic, both because they victimized no one, and because they were not felons.

I don't see the relevance of your points 2 or 4 to this situation. Or why you criticize this short Opinion piece because it is not a complete magnum opus covering all potential disclosure issues.

My point is Dave, who gets to decide what is "important and significant pieces of history"?

To some, Barack Obama's birth certificate was "an important or significant piece of history". That sillininess was pursued so that even his birth certificate was not accepted, even though they asked for his birth certificate. And then his college transcripts became political fodder.

Similarly, the Democrats made Romney's tax documentation "important/significant piece of history".

Each voter should do their own research, which is why there is a degree of "caveat emptor" when we choose a candidate. We shouldn't rely on the candidates for full disclosure regarding their background because they are experts at spin or revising history.

An informed and educated electorate is a free electorate.

Ray,
Who gets to decide what is "important and significant pieces of history"?
1) In most cases, the voters, of course. Some, but not enough to matter, no doubt thought that Obama's birth certificate was a reason not to voter for him in 2008. But on the whole, probably that issue helped Obama, as many voters thought it a silly issue.
2) In the case of felony convictions whose sentences have not yet been completed, the statutes of the state of New Hampshire also apply. (But note that there is some controversy here as to what exactly constitutes a completion of sentence in this case, as I and others have addressed elsewhere.)

Dave,
1, no, the voters cannot decide ahead of time, they don't get the chance to because the issue is how does the candidate decide what is 'significant and important history", you've got the cart before the horse. The subject of Horn's essay is self discIosure of one's past. My question is how does an individual judge what should or should not be disclosed AHEAD of the election. Horn's rules are ambiguous (legalities aside).
(I disagree that Obama's birth certificate was an issue in 2008, as we later saw, Republican claims were bogus.)
2. Yes, i agree, there is confusion over the conviction discharge in the Laughton case

Bingo. Minimum wage gets what it's worth in skills and qualifications.

They should meet in Concord, every other year (it was done until the mid-70's) and meetings should start @3pm so more average people could serve, For $100 a year who can afford to serve, seniors, students, lawyers, unemployed people.

Oh come on.
In Massachusetts the reps make a full time salary, and you STILL get the occasional felon running for office... and sometimes running the whole state legislature!!
Don't fool yourself with the "They don't get paid enough" argument.

Dave,
I disagree that this was a "grasp for power", or a selfish act. Ms. Horn describes elected office as "public service". This is how many people view elected office.

And I agree, that she didn't think this out regarding the consequences to the party once word got out about her past.

I think you assume that Laughton put her ideology above all else. I think that conclusion is premature.

I think that people deserve a second chance, especially if they had paid their debt to society. After two years, the voters could then pass their judgement at the ballot box. Just my humble opinion.

I do believe that everyone has an ideology; however, I also believe that not all Democrats or Republicans are idealogues.

P.S.
It's likely she probably didn't realize she was ineligibe for public office.

Ray:

It's not even clear *NOW* whether or not Stacie was ineligible to run for public office. The statements from the DOC certainly seem to say that she *WAS* and *IS* eligible.

Thank you for clearing that up Alant.

@Atlant absolutely did NOT clear that up. THE DOC ONLY ADMINISTERS PART OF A SENTENCE ONLY A COURT CAN DECLARE A SENTENCE COMPLETE. THAT IS WHY ONE IS REMANDED TO THE NHDOC FOR PART OF THE SENTENCE EXECUTION. If she really is "done" with her sentence let the court that convicted her SAY SO.

Charlie:

> If she really is "done" with her sentence let the court that convicted her SAY SO.

Why? In a comment above, you've already tried-and-convicted her of additional crimes. Nothing that happens from here on out is likely to change your mind.

Ahh Atalnat true to form law be damned huh? Do you even care about anything by an ultra liberal objective? It has nothing to do with my opinion it has to do with the letter of the law. According to some there seems to be a question, to me there is not, that is what the court is for. Now I know in your heart you really do not like the court as that ajudicating power should be in the hands of an elected official as is the case in all of your socialist fantasies about moving america forward.

Mrs Horn is not a candidate for State Representative.

This is why people shouldn't rush to judgement.

It's not as though Republicans or Democrats have a monopoly on virtue (even though they would like you to think that they do).

Perhaps more to the point, Ms. Horn's son is not a candidate for State Representative.

Actually Ed,
http://concord-nh.patch.com/articles/horn-to-seek-gop-chairmanship

Not that I agree with the statement about doing investigations on people's children. That's just creepy.

I think what this is really about is 1) the transgender thing 2) getting rid of a Democrat. I don't really think that probation or whatever is really causing people to lose sleep at night. It's not believable.

I didn't voter for Hassan either, but why don't we let her take office before criticizing (or praising) her performance.

Stacie Laughton and Ray Buckley-Summer Theatre

Absolutely NOT

So your advocating just setting aside the rest of her sentence handed down by the presiding court?

Go figure your related to her.....

Lisa - not doing too well in the ESL course, eh?

You were her Campaign Manager and got busted in the same credit card scam. Is that accurate?

Hard to get facts from from FRAUDS about FRAUDS, wouldn't ya say?

The state or your court sentence? Does the court who issued you your sentence feel your done with it? Resign from ward 4 selectman yet?

Please do...move on. We won't stop you.....or miss you.

How do you know what the voters knew? It does not appear that this was common knowledge.
Have him run again and let's see if the vote total changes...

Lisa: I would like to state a few things.

A.) If that is so true, how is it, that I never saw Stacie volunteering her time with Obama for America, at their campaign office in Nashua? Even more questioning that during that time, I never saw any literature on her as a candidate, and the only sign I saw, was the one she was holding around the corner from where I live (and I live in Ward 3??)

B) You state that the voters did know and if the needed more then ask more? Really? So that is why it took a newspaper report out of Belknap County to bring this to all our attention..........supposedly because you were telling people in Ward 4, of Nashua, in Hillsborough County about her past?

C.) You say for me to get over it. Yet, through the amount of work of many other volunteers, you somehow claim people knew about your past and we could ask that, and yet nobody knew, and yet this smacks in the face of all Democrats who won, over this issue, and I'm not supposed to "just get over it??"

Sorry, but your disregard for other people is downright disgraceful, and irregardless of her being Transgendered, while I busted my butt to help Democrats (with a foot that I injured), and I feel really lousy that you and your partner would disgrace the work of many, through what amounts to deception. Too bad if it keeps haunting you...because that's not my problem........its YOUR PROBLEM.

Resign from selectman ward 4 yet? You should, I am looking at a petition to ask the AG and City attorney to do something about your "service".

Stop trying to shut people up. Who died and appointed you as the omnipotent forum police? If you don't like the comments, don't read them. Just go away.

I will be happy to give em both a chance when they follow the letter of the law and finish the sentence first!

How can someone be in a position to govern when they themselves are in violation of the law? Give me a break.

I'm not convinced they are in violation of the law as it relates to the election. I don't think that case has been made. What I'm seeing so far is some folks feel they were misleading about the history here.

That being said, what I see *you* doing would be classified as Internet bullying. Nothing but snide remarks, attacks, and personal swipes. If you really feel this is purely about the letter of the law, make your case, use facts and references, but steady your hand with the insults and typing in UPPERCASE LETTERS to disparage them.

Here ya go FTP start reading here
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/607-A/607-A-2.htm
Part a makes speciffic refference to the term of incarceration as for elligibility to vote while part B clearly says "Become a candidate for or hold public office". Reading the whoel statue is pretty clear when read "A person sentenced for a felony, from the time of his sentence until his final discharge, may not: Become a candidate for or hold public office"

It gets even clearer when tatlking about sentence completion as it relates to annulment. Start here
http://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2010/titlelxii/chapter651/section651-5/
Section III talks about "has completed all the terms and conditions of the sentence and has thereafter been convicted of no other crime".

There is law to this effect in other areas of our statutes. Clearly other legislation already defined the completion of a sentence but it is not spelled out in ellection law.

This also clearly establishes thta NHDOC does not have the authority to render a completed sentence. Think of it this way, some sentences are left to the DMV to administer and not the NHDOC; think oui here.

Fact they are done with NHDOC, but not the other terms and conditions of thier sentence, speciffically restitution and good behavior. If they feel they are they should petition the court that sentenced them to vacate those terms. Until that time they are not elligble to hold office as they are not done with thier sentence. Seems pretty clear to me.

And you calling me an internet bully is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black; nice one though.

Does probation count, Charlie? And that was a much better post, thank you.

Probabtion is a function of NHDOC unless for some reason someone was sentenced to probation but not remanded to NHDOC for that probation. A court can be ambigious by saying for a probationary period when in effect not actually remanding the offender to NHDOC for traditional probation. Which is the real crux of the matter a court has the absolute right to hand down whatever sentence they want, which may or may not have components administered by NHDOC and in fact may or may not even be enforcable or legal. The way such things are handled is to ask the court to reconsider or vacate and or patition a higher court to overrule the lower one on some grounds to make such a case. The way this was handled by Stacie was to change her name and use the rediculous policy of don't ask don't tell.

It is my understanding that she and her ex-wife were write ins for Ward 4 in nashua, which conviently allowed them to circumvent the candidate registration process. But with this election Stacie certainly had to register; how was this not discovered during that process? (Faulty process? negligent staff? or complicit staff?) Either way noww that this all comes to light they meaning Stacie and her ex wife should both resign from being ward 4 selectman also as it is my understanding that they were co-sentenced in the credit card fraud which has the outstanding/incomplete sentence terms. They know it too, which is why they want it all swept under the rug and not talked about anymore. The deeper you dig on this the worse it gets.................

In fact I think the only reason the AG did not charge Stacie initially is that the AG actually believes that Stacie did not know the law. Furthermore the fact that the registration process did not catch this is a bit of an administrative black eye that would most certainly come out at trial over the matter. Much easier to just have her resign. But like I said it gets even stickier for both the AG and city atourney if they remain selectman and a petition for the citizenry forces thier hand to address the issue. Bottom line, they shouold both resign all public offices they hold, and now.

That is for the individual voter to decide in the polling both which is entirely different than being legally eligible to run as spelled out in NH election law.

What I am curious to know is how did this get by the registration process?

Is the process faulty or are those overseeing the process negligent or complicit in this event?

So you are DONE with all terms of your sentence? Please understand that DONE and compliant with are not one and the same.

No Restitution outstanding?

No Term of good behavior to follow?

Care to provide a court and docket number for me so I can verify your statement? (pardon me if I do not accept your word for it given the nature of the crime you must understand that)

Care to post a copy of your sentence for us all to see?

Please put forward the facts. That would have been better had you all done that right up front.....you would not have wasted tax payer money.

You see, Lisa, the big problem here is that you had to face the court to begin with. I don't want you or anyone else with a criminal background making laws for me to live by. I'm better than you - and most people are. I obey the laws that were put into effect to provide for a safe and orderly society. You didn't.

its the people at the polls who help with the election,

Ed: Thank you. You have basically validated my thoughts, that the Laughton's are grossly overstating their importance as Selectmen. They are nothing more than an Election Clerk is in a town.