Judge okays Oregon House vote to expel Dem. Rep. Diego Hernandez

Democratic Rep. Diego "Two Chins" Hernandez attempted to prevent the House of Representatives from voting on whether to expel him from the state Legislature, but all his hard work went for naught. A judge declined to intervene on Saturday and the move will go forward.

At the beginning of February, lawmakers determined that Hernandez harassed and created a hostile work environment for three women.

The House could vote as early as Tuesday on whether to expel the Portland Democrat.

Hernandez's lawsuit tried for a temporary restraining order to stop the vote on expulsion as well as to prevent other sanctions. After all, it was merely three women; it wasn't like a lot of them.

However, much to Hernandez's chagrin, US District Court Judge Ann Aiken made it clear the Oregon Legislature has been “entrusted with power over policing its own members,” and she was uncomfortable allowing the court to intervene when there is a process in place that is designed to do so.

In Judge Aiken's opinion, Hernandez’s contention was he would suffer “public condemnation, damaged reputation, and reduced financial expectations” if he was expelled without being provided “a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

“However, plaintiff has not plead any facts that his expulsion is certain or even likely to occur,” Aiken wrote. “In order to forestall the possibility of this uncertain outcome, the Court would need to intrude on the prerogatives of the Oregon Legislature, ordering, as (Hernandez) requests, that the House of Representatives not even consider a resolution submitted by its own members.”

It would take a two-thirds vote or 40 members of the House to expel Hernandez, which implies mathematically, that there are 60 House members altogether if my calculations are correct.

The third-term Democratic lawmaker, who represents East Portland, would be the first loser expelled from the Legislature, according to available state records. The vote would not happen, however, if Hernandez decided to resign first, much like former President Richard Milhous Nixon [aka Tricky Dicky] did before his impeachment was vote on.

During oral arguments held on Thursday, Hernandez’s lawyer, Kevin Lafky, argued that his client has not had a meaningful chance to present his case. The House Conduct Committee, Lafky said, missed evidence that would have added context and nuance to Hernandez’s case. When Hernandez tried to offer more evidence to bolster his case, his attorney pointed out, much of it was highly redacted.

“It would be like a jury saying, ‘Well, judge, thanks for those exhibits. But I’m not going to consider them,’” Lafky told the judge.

Judge Aiken disagreed with Lafky’s interpretation in her opinion. She noted that Hernandez was able to participate and respond to the investigation, to the House Conduct Committee members. And, she noted, he will have a chance to speak to his colleagues on the House floor before they vote on whether to expel him.

State House Speaker Tina Kotek, another Portland Democrat, which means she's a socialist, has already affirmed that the normal time constraints put on floor debates would be waived, giving anyone an opportunity to speak as long as they needed while discussing the vote. 

During the oral arguments, the judge also pointed out the vote was initially planned for last Tuesday and Hernandez had not planned to attend or testify.

The Feb. 16 scheduled vote was canceled due to the weather, much like President Biden and putting a lid on his day, but Hernandez filed an excused absence on Feb. 12 citing he would not be present for the vote due to “physical and mental health reasons.”

Marc Abrams, the attorney representing the state Legislature, argued the lawmaker was “subjected to an extensive investigation and he was found to have committed most of the alleged acts.” He also disagreed with Lafky’s assertion that Hernandez was denied due process.

Hernandez “has received abundant process; he merely dislikes the outcome,” Abrams wrote in the reply to the lawsuit.

In her opinion, Aiken also writes that Hernandez claimed the actions against him are “based substantially on (his) race,” and alleges “many Caucasian members ... have committed much more severe acts” than him but never faced expulsion.”

But, she continued, Hernandez has failed to present any evidence that any action taken against him was based on his ethnicity, a claim that has been beaten to death by those on left since time immemorial. I even be a racist for writing this post, but I don't believe I am.

Hernandez has also argued extensively throughout this process that the rule prohibiting workplace harassment in the Capitol is flawed. "Guys should be allowed to flirt or make 'hot' comments to chicks. It makes them feel special, you know what I mean?"

He really didn't say that but he really did say the process in the Capitol is flawed.

Please consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against the China virus.

Tweet