Arizona House sidelines bid to oust Rep. David Stringer, calls for recess

House minority Co-Whip Reginald Bolding, left, speaks to members of the Arizona House of Representatives urging them to expel Rep. David Stringer, R-Prescott, on Monday, Jan. 28, 2019, in Phoenix. (Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)

House minority Co-Whip Reginald Bolding, left, speaks to members of the Arizona House of Representatives urging them to expel Rep. David Stringer, R-Prescott, on Monday, Jan. 28, 2019, in Phoenix. (Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)

EDITOR'S NOTE: This story is updated from a previous version.

PHOENIX — House Republicans sidelined a bid Monday to oust Rep. David Stringer, preferring instead to give the Prescott Republican a chance to explain his 1980s arrest and comments about race and immigration to the House Ethics Committee.

In seeking his removal, Rep. Reginald Bolding, D-Laveen, cited widely reported comments by Stringer last year, like African-Americans "don't blend in'' and there aren't "enough white kids to go around'' to allow for integrated classes.

"Those words are hurtful," Bolding said.

But what appears to have spurred the talk of removing Stringer, versus just a censure, were criminal records from Maryland, unearthed by New Times, which showed he had been arrested there in the 1980s on multiple charges, including child pornography.

Stringer refused to discuss the issue with Capitol Media Services other than to say there was no criminal conviction, apparently due to a plea deal that allowed the arrests and guilty pleas to be expunged from the record after he completed probation.

"I don't know what happened in 1983," Bolding said.

"I wasn't there,'' he continued. "But I can tell you allegations of a sexual nature that was not disclosed to this body, to our voters. "That is not transparency. That is unbecoming of a member of this institution."

But Bolding was outmaneuvered in his motion for an immediate vote by House Majority Leader Warren Petersen who used a procedural maneuver to instead have the House recess.

The Gilbert Republican said he wanted the opportunity to discuss Bolding's proposal and all the allegations against Stringer with fellow members of the party, who control the House on a 31-29 margin, before proceeding. But Petersen made it clear that, as far as he is concerned, a vote to expel is premature.

"We have a process, a process that I'm sure everybody in this room would like to be treated the same way with," he said. And that, Petersen said, would be to allow the Ethics Committee to consider the complaint filed late Monday against Stringer by Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa.

She acknowledged that voters in Stringer's legislative district in the Prescott area did reelect him last year after his first comments about race and immigration came out. But Townsend said the new disclosures, all after the election, require a full investigation to determine if his conduct merits expulsion.

Townsend said the Ethics Committee is empowered to investigate not just violations of any rules or laws but also "any conduct that disrupts the orderly business of this institution." And that, she said, includes anything that "adversely reflects upon the House."

"I cannot tolerate even reports of current or past conduct that, if true, would hold an elected member up to shameful public dishonor or scorn," Townsend wrote in her complaint. "The people demand their elected officials to be of the highest character and reputation."

And that, Townsend said, means investigating to decide whether Stringer should be subject to any discipline, including expulsion.

"At this point, with the information that we have, we need to see exactly what happened,'' she said.

"It is of such an egregious nature that it is something that I feel needs to be known, that we need to look at,'' Townsend said, "Whether it was expunged or not, whether it was a plea deal or not, I think at this point ... that it is a cumulative thing we have in front of us that it rises to the level of the Ethics Committee where these type of things need to go.''

Petersen, in shutting down Bolding's call for immediate ouster, said he was not defending what Stringer has said publicly or what the court records appear to show.

"There is a lot of information out there,'' he said.

"There's a lot of really horrible things that we've heard of,'' Petersen continued. "But there's also other sides of the story,'' saying lawmakers should "follow the process'' before taking any votes.

Rep. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, said he wants to know more before voting to expel someone, especially if it's based at least in part on Stringer's comments.

"I was not elected to this body to continually expel members for something I might disagree with,'' he said.

And Rep. John Fillmore, R-Apache Junction, said he wanted to "take the time,'' particularly as the court records from Maryland suggest there was no actual conviction "or anything like that.'' And then there was the fact he was reelected by a 2-1 margin.

"Before we destroy a man, remove 66,000 votes that were cast in his favor, we need to know that we are doing the right thing,'' he said.

"We should stand for the rule of law,'' Fillmore continued. "And the rule of law, I believe in America, still is that you have a right to a hearing, a right to defend yourself, a right to put the stuff out, the information out there for everybody to see.''


Donate Report a Typo Contact
Most Read