Mr. Monserrate says he will challenge the expulsion in the courts. Over the weeks since his conviction, he has repeatedly portrayed himself as the victim. This is nonsense, as the security tape shows. The victim of this domestic violence is clearly Ms. Giraldo, and while Mr. Monserrate got seven other senators to vote for him, all were men. The 10 female senators, unsurprisingly, voted otherwise.
-- NYT Editors
The NY Daily News editors are of the same mentality, more or less, but didn't like the backdoor method used to go about it. They also threw in some more personal invective -- they tend to be asses like that -- at some of his few supporters. Two liberal leaning op-ed writers, including Juan Gonzalez (of Democracy Now!), suggested however that it wasn't just typical NY state legislature clown college material, but perhaps simply illegal.
Gonzalez especially made it some kind of civil liberties issue. He laid it on a bit thick, citing two previous Supreme Court cases that involved no expulsion of legislatures, but refusal to seat them. One was based on his views, so was a free speech case, and other concerned the narrow qualifications required for the members of the U.S. Congress. The one fully relevant citation was to an earlier NY exclusion controversy, the facts of which were not dealt with with enough detail to provide much clarification.
Here's the thing. State Senator Monserrate is an asshole. In between his election and swear-in, he got into some physical confrontation with a girlfriend, who refused to be a witness against him. Given her apparent change of heart, and hostile witness performance, the bench trial did not lead to a felony conviction. This would have meant an obligatory expulsion under state law. A misdemeanor conviction is a hazy matter, made worse given the rarity of expulsions. Being an asshole, however, is not grounds enough for an expulsion. The ACLU, protector of assholes and others, is on the case.
Sen. Monserrate (if the title still is proper) is not beloved by many of us for various reasons. His temporary move to vote with the Republicans to swing the Senate that way until he and another boob changed their minds didn't bring many friends. Nor, did his apparent flip-flop on the issue of same sex marriage. The handful of Senate supporters (over 50 over 62 senators voted to expel him), the NY Daily News might have lacked taste but were not that far off, also leave a lot to be desired in some respects. Others have noted other bad things about him.
But, I don't know about this expulsion based on the alleged fact that "the actions of Senator Monserrate, as measured in their totality, are not compatible with his oath of office," given the focus is on acts before he took that oath. As I wrote this, I sent my senator (who holds a leadership role) a request for information regarding the report written on the body's power to expel him. He sent me the report, noting it would be eventually put on the official site soon. It provides some further insight on the decision.
The report cited by Gonzalez is noted and briefly notes some disagreement, including the citation to the Powell case linked above. So, his most relevant citation is of somewhat limited value. The report notes the senator and his counsel was given a chance to be involved, but they refused. It notes that he has not shown remorse or did so in legalistic ways that don't amount to much. It notes the broad power to expel, including independent power to investigate (e.g., in effect find him guilty of a felony). Domestic violence also is a special matter of concern for the state though I reckon so are other things, and the bottom line is what he was convicted of or what they found the evidence showed.
And, it (weakly) notes at one part that "arguably" the Senate has power even if he was only Senator-Elect at the time of the wrongdoing. At least, more strongly this time, it shows that the will of the voters aren't be overridden since they had no choice to judge the matter. Overall, they determine the totality of the circumstances, not just the misdemeanor conviction, is what matters. The basic conclusion to me is that they think he got off too easily given the facts and his lack of remorse and involvement in the investigation plus the sordid nature of the crime justifies his expulsion.
Plus, they have broad power, the bottom line a judgment call. Well, maybe. But, all the precedents provided appear to cover those who committed acts within their terms. So, he just might win on appeal. A special election has been set almost immediately. Thus, even if he did, it wouldn't mean too much. And, yeah, he's still an ass.