Andrew Cuomo resigned Tuesday. Or, formally, two weeks from Tuesday, for the detail-conscious who care to know. We got the alerts from our pop-ups and scrolls — "Cuomo Resigns Amid Scandals, Ending Decade-Long Run in Disgrace" — but in the end the timing means less than the outcome. It may as well have happened last week, after the New York governor's pattern of sexual harassment had been baked in the hot sun of a state attorney general's report and after his support had peeled away like old paint.
The "when" and "whether" surrounding the voluntary severance of a public servant from a position are often unclear — such people are reluctant to let go and sometimes right to resist — but the mismatch of power and personal integrity is rarely as clear as it grew to be understood in Cuomo's case. In saying that he didn't realize the extent to which the lines he crossed "had been redrawn," he essentially admitted that he acted toward women as he did because he believed he could.
That's different only in tone from the vulgar words that led the Star Tribune Editorial Board to call for Donald Trump to drop out of the presidential race in 2016. No legitimate leader can act in a manner that holds half the population in disregard, we wrote then. We didn't win that argument, but the argument hasn't changed.
In light of the exhaustive report released Aug. 3 by the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, prominent political leaders and editorial boards around the country concluded that Cuomo should go. We didn't consider it imperative to weigh in quickly ourselves, given the broad consensus and the fact that the matter was that of a distant state. We have, however, faced similar decisions close to home. The framework we use to consider them is one in which voters might find value, too.
It's not always the case that a public official should resign — or be removed through an established process — just because that person is in the doghouse. Constituents should be circumspect about such outcomes. Elections are held on a regular schedule in the jurisdictions of this country, and despite assertions to the contrary or the doubts they aim to dredge up, the vote tallies are reliable. And despite the many examples to the contrary, voters do sometimes throw the bums out who deserve it, or who have simply overstayed their welcome. To be eager for early dismissal is, to at least some extent, to subvert that democratic process.
Also important is due process. Though the standards in the political arena are looser than they are for a finding of criminal guilt, there still ought to be care taken in rendering a judgment.
Most important, however, is that each situation is different and must be considered in its context.
Beyond those considerations, these questions:
