Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Regarding “Local Republicans Censure Cheney,” I was surprised because I consider myself a “local Republican” and I did not censure Representative Cheney. Reading further confirmed that the Republican Party of Crook County (“RPCC”) was probably causing Edmund Burke to spin in his grave.

Burke, a conservative long before Crook County was dreamed up, defined the boundaries of representative government as follows:

“[I]t ought to be the happiness and glory of a Representative, to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the Law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

I am not an avid supporter of Representative Cheney but her willingness to take a stand in accord with her own “judgment” when she knew that her stand would not be popular with “the folks back home” certainly raises her stock in my estimation. If I, or anyone else, disagrees with her stand, then we will get to register our displeasure in November of 2022 at the polls (as well as writing letters to editors and putting bumper stickers on our pick-up trucks and other First Amendment fun and frivolity). In any event, her stance was a refreshing break from Democrats and Republicans lining up on CSPAN to say what the “folks back home” want to hear, whether realistic or not.

While I thought Representative Cheney’s language was more vitriolic than warranted, my understanding of “impeachment” leads me to believe that her conclusion was probably correct. Impeachment is essentially a prosecutorial decision with the House of Representatives acting as the Prosecutor and Grand Jury.

Prosecutors and grand juries routinely approve cases that may not rise to the level of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” at first blush but certainly hold the potential of such an outcome as the evidence accumulates. The case then goes to the United States Senate where the Senators serve as jurors to consider all evidence and make a finding of guilt or innocence.

As a lawyer, I have real reservations as to whether the evidence, on balance, can sustain a conviction in this instance. But neither I nor the RPCC is the jury; the Senate holds that responsibility.

In my experience, juries are better informed on the merits of a case than anyone else, including the media, the RPCC or myself, because they hear all the evidence. (For what it is worth, I also believe that the constitutionality of trying a former President in the Senate is highly questionable). So, while her language was stronger than I would have used, Representative Cheney was almost certainly within the boundaries of her “job,” which was to make a prosecutorial decision.

Which brings us to censure. Censure is typically employed when an office holder has acted unethically, illegally or immorally and the body to which that person has been elected or appointed wishes to express its disapproval. Censure is not the proper vehicle for a third party (like the RPCC) to express its disapproval for a member of the House of Representatives acting within the confines of her “job” (and pretty clearly not unethically, illegally or immorally).

Since coming back to Wyoming six years ago, I have been happy to live in a place like Crook County where many of my fellow citizens share my strong preference for conservative government. I have been alarmed, however, by attempts at the County and State level to arrogate to the Party decisions that rightfully lie with our elected representatives. This has manifested itself in demands to state representatives (and now to our only member of the U.S. House) to adhere strictly to the official Party platform or position.

RPCC’s Facebook page says that it is charged with “electing Republicans to every office throughout Crook County.” The Wyoming Republican Party’s “role” is to “recruit citizens to join the Republican Party; to establish the Platform of the Wyoming Republican Party; to achieve the election of Republican candidates who substantially uphold the platform of the Wyoming Republican Party and to conduct the business of the Wyoming Republican Party.”

If the Wyoming Republican Party believes that Representative Cheney has not “substantially” upheld its platform in two years, its “job” is to recruit other qualified candidates to oppose her. I assume that the Wyoming Republican Party will consult with the RPCC and other county Republican organizations as it evaluates qualified candidates.

On the other hand, issuing proclamations of censure against a member of one’s own party is not part of the Wyoming Republican Party’s or the RPCC’s “job.” Arguably, it is just the opposite. Recruiting will be a difficult task once potential candidates understand that the Party will not have their backs if they have the temerity to exercise their judgment.

I can only find one person in the story of censure who did her “job,” and that was Representative Cheney. Rather than shooting out the back of the wagon, we will be better served if our Republican Party organizations stick to their “job” of recruiting and then promoting candidates for election. I and the other voters of Crook County can take it from there. That’s our “job.”

Brad McKim