Felony DUI indictment should prompt state lawmaker to resign
September 18th, 2007, 5:45 pm · Post a Comment · posted by Le Templar
I don’t understand why Rep. Trish Groe, R-Lake Havasu City, is still in the state Legislature after her felony arrest for drunken driving last spring. And I am confused as to why her colleagues haven’t done more to encourage her to leave, for her own sake as well as for the reputation of the House of Representatives.The Associated Press reported Groe was formally indicted by a grand jury Tuesday for aggressive DUI and also on a misdemeanor charge of providing false information to the arresting officer. Groe was stopped in March while driving through Parker on her way home from Phoenix. The police report says testing showed her lowest blood alcohol level was .148, or close to double the state limit of .08. Groe has told the Today’s News Herald newspaper in Lake Havasu City that she had been drinking at her Phoenix apartment before starting her trip. She went into 30 days of alcohol addiction treatment shortly after the arrest became public knowledge, during the middle of the 2007 legislative session. The AP also reported Groe’s state driver’s license had been revoked at the time of her arrest, a contributing factor in Tuesday’s felony indictment. To make matters worse, Groe had a previous DUI conviction in California less than a decade earlier, according to the Arizona Capitol Times. A single DUI incident can be a honest mistake, a misjudgment about how much alcohol a person can handle and still drive safely. A second DUI usually is a clear sign that a person has serious problems with alcohol that can infect every aspect of his or her life and put other people in danger.A felony conviction would force Groe out of her legislative seat. She could avoid that fate if she could plea bargain her case to a misdemeanor (or somehow beat the charges at trial). But it’s hard to imagine that voters would accept a lawmaker who appears to have driven drunk for hundreds of miles in the same year that the Legislature approved some of the toughest DUI laws in the country.The Tribune went through its own painful experience with a repeat DUI offender last spring when then-news columnist Slim Smith revealed he was getting ready for a trial on his third arrest in five years. (Smith eventually decided to plead guilty and he served four months in prison).Groe apparently says she was unaware that she didn’t have a valid driver’s license. But the La Paz special prosecutor says she did know, and that’s a poor excuse anyway for someone entrusted to vote on laws the rest of us must obey.As far as I know, Groe has never harmed anyone with her driving. So I don’t want her life to be ruined and I hope she now has control of her drinking. But the Tribune Editorial Board has agreed elected officials must be held to much higher standards than private citizens, especially when their self-imposed problems interfere with their ability to represent their constituents.Groe’s constituents already lost a month of her service when it really mattered. For various reasons, her case has progressed rather slowly since her arrest. So there’s a good chance Groe will be in additional court hearings during the 2008 legislative session, costing her more time at the Capitol.Meanwhile, Groe suffered no obvious punishment when she returned from alcohol treatment for the end of the 2007 session. She wasn’t removed from any legislative committees. There was no ethics investigation nor was a single complaint filed. A spokesman for House Speaker Jim Weiers said Tuesday afternoon that House lawyers are now researching how the Legislature has dealt in the past with lawmakers who faced DUI charges.If recent history is a guide, then Groe will be free to return to the House next year as long as she avoids a felony conviction.In 1999, then-state Sen. John Verkamp of Flagstaff was sentenced to 10 days in jail for extreme DUI, which he served on weekends so he could continue his legislative duties during the week. Another arrest by Scottsdale police in 2002 (for resisting arrest and interfering with their ability to check his sobriety) occurred after that year’s session was over and Verkamp wasn’t running for re-election. So he quietly left the office at the end of the year.
