If a governor were to threaten to veto the funds for a DA’s office unless the DA dropped the armed robbery charges against the governor’s (hypothetical) nephew, then I suspect that most of us would regard that threat as a clearly illegal abuse of the governor’s powers. Similarly, if a governor were to use the same threat to try to force the DA to fire one of the DA’s employees, then most of us would regard that as illegal, also. So how is it different to use that same threat to try to force a DA to fire himself or herself? Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the governor’s goals, an illegal threat is still an illegal threat. Or should we subscribe to the theory that the end justifies the means?

Steven Carriker

Dripping Springs