ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (04/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings




TX: Convicted sex offender declared ineligible to run for Arlington mayor

[ – 4/12/21]

A convicted sex offender has been ruled ineligible to run for Arlington mayor, but his name will remain on the ballot because the deadline has passed to remove it, according to the city secretary’s office.

Jerry Warden was one of eight candidates vying for the position of mayor. The city initially ruled that Warden could remain in the race after another candidate filed a complaint, but reversed that decision last week.

Warden holds a lifetime listing on the Texas Public Sex Offenders Registry after being convicted in 1996 on charges of kidnapping and sexually abusing a 24-year-old woman. Warden served a 15-year prison sentence, according to sex offender registry documents.

Under the Texas Election Code, candidates with felony convictions are eligible to run for office only if they have been pardoned or have had their full citizenship rights restored.

Read the full article


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I stated in an earlier post elsewhere here (in Feb or Mar) that this person was ineligible. I’m surprised the city secretary did not know the elections code. If one has a conviction, one is not eligible to be voted into public office.

But if one is on deferred adjudication, the conviction is not final but deferred to the future where the judge will either sign an order to dismiss the charge or convict the person.

Most places do not follow the election code, and courts seem eager to not enforce them. It’s only when they want to enforce them then they will. US election 2020 is a prime example

The court is unwilling to expose themselves the partisan appearance because such perceptions lead to large groups focusing on blaming them for laws created by moneyed congressional politics. Obviously a growing ire of the masses is exacerbated by the courts ducking obligation the the people to protect them ( the whole people) from an unregulated Congress. The Rehnquist court sure as hell fucked up big time, by rationalize the obvious ex post language buried in a 690 page bill. The court will suffer those bad choices.

Dude, you’re supposed get into office THEN commit the sex offense. Duh!

Don’t worry, because he can move to Florida and be elected to congress!

The ruling against him should be overturned on a technicality because I bet there has never been a person on the registry that has been pardoned by the governor or had their full rights restored. This is just one of the SO Jim Crow laws that they say, “Oh, sure, once you serve your sentence just get a pardon from the governor and you can be part of the representative government”–knowing full well he will never, ever get a pardon. So essentially they don’t have a representative government, because not all citizens can have equal opportunity at representation. Of course, no judge will ever rule in his favor and overturn that ruling either.

When I first heard about this issue, I couldn’t help but wonder what a sorry piece of shit the registrant’s opponent must be if he’s worried about losing an election to a registrant.

But his name is on the ballot still so how many votes will he get to create election turmoil? How will they inform the people he’s not eligible? I hope he gets quite a few to stick it to the process.

Good point. I hope he gets enough to signal the powers that be that scapegoating registrants may not be as surefire as it once was.

In fact, the TX rules stigmatize anyone convicted of a felony, not just those with a sex offense conviction.

What David is saying is true. A felony conviction of any kind no matter how old and no matter how long punishment has been complete bars one in Texas from being legally voted into public office. And in Texas one can have a felony conviction and be on probation and never serve time in jail or prison.

I personally think this is bull. Once someone completes any punishment then that person should be eligible for public office. Let the people decide who they want in public office, not the state deciding who should be in public office.

The one time exeption in my opinion is if the person was in public office and was found guilty of abuse of power or office or corruption. Then that person lost his or her right to serve the public because that person has already demonstrated that person has no interest in serving the public, just serving him or herself.

And on another note, nowhere in the federal or Texas constitution does it bar someone from voting if one commits a crime. So if one’s right to vote is taken away, that violates both the federal and Texas constitution. But of course judges have twisted the constitutions to fit their political agenda and personal beliefs.

Good point and I think funny, but I believe there are at least 6 other people on the ballot, so not an issue.

And even if he received some votes, it will not be much and will not make much difference because the city has a large population so there will be a fair amount of voters.

I’m guessing the election judge at each location will be required to pay a notice at the voting site that this person on the ballot has been declared ineligible for public office.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x