After mulling it over for more than a month, Judge Dennis Sweeney made his decision this morning in the cases against Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon and city councilwoman Helen Holton.
He knocked out five charges against the Mayor and all charges against Holton—buying their respective arguments that they fall under the protection of the so-called “speech or debate” clause. This doctrine dates back hundreds of years and essentially says an elected official’s votes and official acts can’t be used against them.
Some history is in order.
This protection has its roots in England when, during, the 16th and 17th centuries, the Kings made it a practice of intimidating (or worse) legislators who didn’t go along with them. The idea was to shield members of parliament from retribution by the throne simply because of their legislative acts.
Fast forward a few hundred years and we have Baltimore’s mayor and a city council member being let off the hook in a 2009 “speech or debate” ruling.
Many might wonder if this is really what the protection intends.
In Holton’s case, it serves to shield her from the allegation she got a developer to pay for a political poll—and therefore spare the expense herself—while she was voting on his projects.
In Dixon’s case, it serves to protect her from perjury charges—for allegedly failing to tell the public she got fur coats, and cash, and shopping trips from the same developer, also while voting on his projects.
These cases are about prosecution for allegations of personal gain—not persecution for a political stand.
