Issuance of pardons is a very public matter

By Layne Bruce

JACKSON, Miss. Ń Call former Gov. Haley BarbourÕs pardons of over 200 convicted felons what you want Š egregious, nonsensical or Ń if youÕre so inclined Ń justified. More worrisome, though, may be the volume of instances where pardons were issued but public notice requirements about them were not fulfilled.

ItÕs a bizarre turn of events that has led to a court order to halt the release of some prisoners, the potential rounding up of others and wiping the slate clean for scores of people long out of jail.

The pardoning power of governors and presidents is a well-known and important part of executive privileges. It's there for deserving individuals who have simply exhausted all other avenues of possible reprieve.

More obscure to many Š apparently even to some officials and their throngs of legal advisers Š is Article 5, Section 124 of the Mississippi Constitution that succinctly requires proper advance public notice be made before a pardon request is granted by the governor.

In the case of scads of pardons issued Jan. 10, that didnÕt happen. Many public notices pertaining to cases in counties all over the state werenÕt published in the proper local newspaper far enough in advance of the issuance of the pardons. Many more evidently didnÕt run at all.

Even a cursory check of ads placed in a Jackson newspaper showed some of the public notices were scheduled to begin running Jan. 12, two days after the pardons themselves had been signed by the former governor.

This isnÕt about whether any one of the individuals Barbour pardoned was worthy or not. ThatÕs another debate and one thatÕs usually rendered moot by the chief executiveÕs right to release convicts and restore their civil rights.

Rather, this is about transparency and the publicÕs right to know.Ź

The circumventing of public notice law has been a problem at all levels of government since we formed one. And, quite frankly, IÕm not sure whether itÕs better to say the governorÕs office was unaware of what is constitutionally-required or simply didnÕt bother to check.

A spokesperson for Barbour correctly pointed out after the story broke that the burden of notice falls on the individual requesting the pardon.

But itÕs valid for the public to expect someone at some level of government validated the notices were published properly before the executive orders granting the pardons were signed.

This is a prime example of the importance ŹŠ and too often overlooked ŹŠ principle of public notices that appear in newspapers and on their websites in this state and nationwide. They serve the publicÕs right to know about what is happening with government and public officials within their communities.
And when public notice laws are abused ŹŠ either by mistake or on purpose ŹŠ a serious right of citizens, taxpayers and voters is compromised.

Now weÕre left to sort out how many of those pardoned were actually eligible. ItÕs going to take time and money.

Some have discounted the outrage resulting from the mass pardons as political rhetoric. After all, a vast majority were no longer incarcerated.Ź

It doesnÕt reconcile, though, a number of murderers were nearly handed back the right to own a gun. And some molesters were almost excused from registering as sex offenders.

Victims of such crimes deserve better.

And the public at large has a right to know. Always.

Layne Bruce is executive director of the Mississippi Press Association.