Jury Should Hear Worley's Felony Charges

After reading about the Attorney General's reasons for filing the felony charges against Nancy Worley, I have changed my previous opinion. I now think that jury should get the opportunity to hear the evidence on those charges and render a verdict.

The statute in question is 17-1-7(c), which says:

(b) No person shall attempt to use his or her official authority or position for the purpose of influencing the vote or political action of any person. Any person who violates this subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony and punishable by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period not to exceed two years, or both.
 

Judge Truman Hobbs indicated that this section was being applied only to Worley's solicitation that included not only a request for money but also asked employees to place a bumper sticker on their car or a campaign sign in their yard.  Without any further information, I agreed with Hobbs. These activities are standard for campaigns and do not generally reflect a misuse of public office, although the request for money apparently violates a separate statute that prevents state employees from being solicited for campaign contributions by supervisors.

The Attorney General's filing though shows more is at play than just the letter that Worley sent employees.  According to WSFA, the Attorney General's filing include this:
 

"The State also expects to introduce evidence that the mailing did in fact include the referenced bumper sticker as well as a donation envelope.  Further, the State expects to present evidence that Defendant Worley obtained the home addresses of some of the respective employees by virtue of her position as the chief executive in the Office of Secretary of State.  Additionally, the State expects witnesses to testify that Worley, in her capacity of Secretary of State told employees that she could find out if they voted and for whom they voted."
 

If Worley utilized the employees' personnel files to get their addresses for her mailing, that would appear to be use of her official position to further her candidacy. 

Similarly, if Worley told her employees that by virtue of her position as Secretary of State she could determine how they voted and used that as a tool of intimidation, that would appear to be use of her official position to further her candidacy.

Now, maybe Worley didn't do either of these things. Maybe the employees are lying or misunderstood something Worley said. Maybe Worley didn't get the addresses out of the personnel files. Those, however, seem to be questions of fact for the jury to decide.

Without further information, it doesn't appear to me that the statute is overly-broad, in theory or in the way it is being applied here.