Former Rep. Luke Simons, of Dickinson, addressed his expulsion, the specific allegations of sexual harassment levied against him and his tentative steps to seek redress including pursuing legal action against the North Dakota House of Representatives in a press conference Tuesday in Bismarck. His attorney Lynn Boughey, of Mandan, noted that Simons will not make any final decisions until later this week.

In a packed meeting room at the Wingate hotel, Simons spoke to members of the media as his wife, children, supporters and legislators showed their support. During the conference Simons repeatedly denied the allegations that were released in documents over a week ago, which included testimonies from fellow legislators, interns and legal council members.

Former Rep. Luke Simons addresses the allegations of sexual harassment and his recent expulsion from the North Dakota House of Representatives Tuesday in a meeting room at Wingate Hotel in Bismarck. (Jackie Jahfetson/The Dickinson Press)
Former Rep. Luke Simons addresses the allegations of sexual harassment and his recent expulsion from the North Dakota House of Representatives Tuesday in a meeting room at Wingate Hotel in Bismarck. (Jackie Jahfetson/The Dickinson Press) 

Boughey argued that the due process procedure was violated, and that no investigation was conducted to determine the allegations were legitimate before Simons was expelled from the House.

“... Allegations are easy to make, but the truth in any time of hearing or trial comes out during a questioning or cross examination. That didn’t happen here because the Legislature didn’t follow our rules, didn’t appoint a panel to look into it, didn’t appoint an investigator to look into it. All of that could have been done, (but) it didn’t happen. And as a result, they vividly disenfranchised all of the voters in his district by taking him out of his seat,” Boughey said.

Boughey noted, “... Yes, some people have asserted that the Legislature can do whatever they want in regards to by no due process or whatever they want as far as restricting their own members. I was certain that the due process clause applies to everybody… The Legislature as much as they want to be above the law because they happen to write it, is not above the law.”

According to the parliamentary authority for state legislatures, better known as the Mason's Manual, section 562 outlines expulsion of legislators. In moving forward with the expulsion legislators relied on guidance from legal council specifically outlining subsections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. They did not apply, according to the documents provided to the house during the resolution to remove Simons, subjection 4, which reads, “Adequate notice, formal charges and a public hearing with the right to cross examine witnesses have been held to be necessary components of procedural due process that must be afforded to a member prior to expulsion.”

Simons addressed several questions from the media, including whether he will fight his expulsion.

“My ultimate goal would be to have a Republican Party that if anybody was ever accused of something like this, they would have a fair, honest hearing instead of some kind of King George hearing where you’re guilty because they say so. This is America; we do believe in due process 100%,” Simons remarked. “... So when I see a Republican Party come and do this to me, it wasn’t to me that they did this to, it wasn’t to my constituents (but) it was what they did to my family. I never realized politics could be so dog eat dog ever.”

Some constituents in District 36 are circulating petitions and making public their plans to seek supporters to join in filing a class action lawsuit against the State of North Dakota for removing their elected representative without adherence to legal and legislative protocol, thus depriving their right to be represented at the capitol.

According to the constituents, the removal of Simons was a direct violation of District 36's right to have representation they choose and in removing Simons without following the protocol it was tantamount to disenfranchisement — the revocation of suffrage for a group of citizens. This argument was one that Boughey said was currently true as those citizens did not have an active legislator representation in Bismarck.

"At the moment, since no one is voting on their behalf they have been disenfranchised," Boughey said. "They make a good point that if someone gets in there that they didn't want, they could argue that."

Boughey also noted that voters were aware that when they voted for Simons that should he die or leave office, a replacement would be selected.

"It is my gut reaction that although they are disenfranchised at the moment, once the process begins and they appoint someone I'm not so sure how viable their argument would be."

According to the constituents considering such legal actions, any appointee to Simons' position would only further their disenfranchisement as that individual would not be representative of the will of the people.

"If we do take it to the Supreme Court, which would be the next step if my client wants that, that is an extremely quick process," Boughey said. "That will go into an abbreviated briefing schedule and they'll make a decision within days."