Anchorage Daily News

Sen. Ted Stevens gets to vote in next Tuesday's election despite being found guilty of seven federal felonies because his conviction won't be final until he's sentenced, the state Department of Law decided late Wednesday.

Alaska law bars felons convicted of crimes involving "moral turpitude" from voting for the duration of their sentence, including any probation period.

Stevens' failure to report gifts is a Class D felony under federal law and constitutes such a crime because it involves willful fraud, said an opinion by Michael Barnhill, a senior assistant attorney general with the state.

But when is a person deemed convicted? Barnhill conceded in his opinion there are two ways to read the law, with a popular interpretation being that the jury's verdict is enough. But most legal precedents lean toward waiting until the judge in the case has entered his formal judgment and sentence, Barnhill said.

No date for sentencing Stevens has been set.

Stevens first has the right to file for a new trial and other relief. The federal judge in the case, Emmet Sullivan, has given Stevens' defense team until Dec. 5 to file those motions, with a hearing set for Feb. 25.

Given the touchy nature of the voting question, it took the state legal department more than two days to sort through the precedents and draw up its four-page opinion for Division of Elections director Gail Fenumiai. Questions about Stevens' right to vote began coming to the division within hours of his conviction Monday.

The state's conclusion jibes with the opinion of several other lawyers, including federal public defender Rich Curtner in Anchorage. But Curtner added that the question of exactly when a felon loses voting rights had never come up in any of his federal cases.

"For most of my clients, that's the least of their worries," he said.

Two lawyers who spoke at a Democratic Party press conference on the Stevens case Wednesday -- Meg Simonian and Jeff Feldman -- agreed, saying the senator will also lose the right to a Permanent Fund dividend check after his sentencing.

In his legal opinion, Barnhill conceded it's a judgment call for the state. He cites a contrary example, in which the state recognizes a jury verdict alone as sufficient when a judge is looking for prior convictions at sentencing for a second crime.

"Given the weight of the authorities, and the Alaska Supreme Court's historical reliance on case law from Washington, Oregon and California, we think that if this question were presented to our courts, they would be more likely than not to adopt the majority case law view, and interpret 'conviction' according to its legal technical meaning," Barnhill concluded.

"Given the high profile nature of this issue, this conclusion may be challenged in court," he added. "If a legal challenge is mounted prior to Senator Stevens casting his ballot, the Division of Elections should provide Senator Stevens with a questioned ballot."

ADVERTISEMENT