Democrats and Republicans, Heed the Call, All Can Attend the Hypocrites’ Ball
Jeffrey Balk, the erstwhile chair of the Sussex County Democratic Party, stepped down from his position over the weekend, but not before his situation exposed the rank hypocrisy of the party he represents.
The Democrats in Dover pushed long and hard for a law that bans employers asking job applicants if they’ve ever been convicted of a crime. This law includes no exceptions. But apparently there are some, because according to a statement put out by most of the party’s high-ranking officials,
As Democrats, we believe in the possibility of growth and reform of offenders, but second chances can’t come at the expense of survivors who are still living with the pain of what was done to them. … It’s time for [Balk] to step down so we can uphold the dignity and safety of survivors, the integrity of the party, and the trust of our community. (Emphasis mine).
Oh really? So crime victims’ pain negates the principle of second chances, does it? In that case, perhaps the Democratic Party of Delaware would be so kind as to provide employers with a list of what crimes have “survivors who are still living with the pain of what was done to them.” Because I think it would be a very long list.
I assume this list would include any crime of a sexual nature, but what about violence? Assault, for example? Many of those victims live in literal pain. What about robbery? Victims have to live with the fear that comes from having been robbed, even if it was simple burglary – after all, their homes were invaded, and many live in fear that it could happen again. You see what I’m getting at here: Every crime has victims who have to live with the pain of what was done to them.
Nobody who pushed for the Ban the Box law cared a whit about this when they were advocating for perpetrators who had paid their adjudicated debt to society. I find it particularly hypocritical in a case that happened more than 40 years ago, whose victims are now in their 50s. Have Delaware Democrats attempted to find out if those victims are “still living with the pain”? One tends to doubt it.
So I call bullshit. Sure, they’re on-brand with their compassion for victims now, when their previous compassion for the perpetrators makes them look bad. So compile the list of crimes for which the law does not apply, you blatant hypocrites.
Republicans, for their part, are even bigger hypocrites. Their statement on the controversy claimed, in part:
It is deeply troubling that any political organization in Delaware would tolerate, much less support, someone with such a record of predation against children. … Nothing is more important that the safety of our kids, and no political excuse can ever justify placing them at risk.
Does chairing a county political party put “our kids” at risk? Apparently so, if you’re a Republican. When Vance Phillips, the county’s influential GOP powerbroker, was credibly accused of grooming a 16-year-old political volunteer and raping her after she turned 16, did the party utter a single word condemning him? He ran for re-election after the accusations surfaced and lost his primary, but not because party officials said anything against him.
I already know what the Republicans, who are hypocrites of long standing and frequent practice, will say to this: Phillips wasn’t convicted of anything. There’s a reason for that, and Sussex County Republicans know full well what it is. Phillips himself explained it to his victim, as she described to the media after Phillips successfully petitioned the court to keep his trial closed:
If [the victim] told anyone what was happening, she says Phillips told her, “she would never have a career in politics” because “he was a powerful politician with lots of power over courts and judges and … she would be considered a liar.”
Rather than allow Phillips to hide his misdeeds behind a legal smokescreen, she chose to settle her lawsuit with no compensation in order to speak out publicly about her ordeal:
I was sexually assaulted and raped the spring and summer of my senior year of high school by a family friend and a local politician, Vance Philips. This former Sussex County Councilman befriended me, groomed me, gained my trust, and used that trust to put me in a situation where I was completely vulnerable and then attacked me. He orchestrated the attacks as well as their cover up and threatened me into silence. After breaking that silence, I diligently sought justice through the criminal justice system, but was told by the Attorney General’s office that he would not be prosecuted criminally at this time. In order to obtain justice, and to shed light on what happened, I chose the only other legal option open to me and that was filing a civil lawsuit. …
Vance Phillips fought to have the court filings protected and confidential and I opposed that and wanted the case to be open to the public. To this day he pleads the fifth amendment for fear of self-incrimination and has never denied raping me.
You want to see the list of Sussex County Republicans who condemned Philips for his actions? Here it is:
•
•
•
•
No, it’s not written in invisible ink. That’s the whole list, right there.
Personally, I think Mr. Balk probably did the right thing for the right reason: He had become a distraction, and it probably would have been better if he had bowed out quietly, before the damage had been done.
But his misstep pales beside the hypocrisy displayed on both sides of the political aisle. Y’all should be ashamed of yourselves, and I know damn well you won’t be.
Imagine if Democrats got as riled up about calling on two time DWI Kevin Hensley who literally almost killed someone as they did about a crime 40 years ago…..don’t worry tho, at the next criminal justice reform event they will talk about second chances all day….the whole Balk thing was silly pandering.
I believe that the woman Hensley almost killed died a few days later from a heart attack or something like that, so he probably did kill her, even if her death certificate doesn’t say as much.
You’re fundamentally misrepresenting what Ban the Box is. It doesn’t say a potential employer can NEVER use someone’s past convictions in considering whether to hire them…it says that factor can’t be used upfront at the start of the process. You can’t have them check a BOX as to whether they’re a felon that then disqualifies them from any consideration.
But after that first phase, employers are perfectly free to use criminal history in final hiring process.
Which makes sense. Someone convicted of embezzlement probably won’t be able to get a job managing the accounts for a company. And that’s fine. No one is saying they can never be employed ever again…just that there may be certain jobs they’re unsuited for.
Political leaders interact with minors all the time. You reference the 16-year-old volunteer Vance Phillips raped. In politics, young people volunteer on campaigns. Sussex County Dems were particularly trying to recruit young people to volunteer, going into high schools to recruit, starting a youth council.
It is very obvious that someone with Balk’s history shouldn’t be in that kind of role. Full stop.
The Sussex Dems who chose him for the position, apparently fully aware of all the details of his crimes, should never have hired him for the position.
Fair enough, but the underlying principle of Ban the Box is that people who’ve paid their debt to society shouldn’t have their crimes held against them. The Dems who wanted him to step down admitted as much, and the notion that they were doing it out of sympathy for the pain of the past victims is disingenuous bullshit. They believe in rehabilitation … sort of.
If they thought he was likely to molest again, go ahead and say so. If they think it looks bad – which you and I both know is the real reason – they should say so clearly, instead of the mealy-mouthed way they sidestepped it.
So I stand by the charge of hypocrisy. They don’t have the courage of their convictions. You might ask yourself whether you believe in rehabilitation as well.
Those who molest and rape children can’t be cured. They’re sick for life. Yes, it’s unfair because it’s a part of who they are, but I wouldn’t let my kids around them.
Agree, and Ban the Box didn’t eliminate the Sex Offender list, which exists for a reason and from which the former Chair did not successfully remove himself. His assertions to party members that he was only on such a list for being gay before society deemed it appropriate should be an additional disqualifying factor. His limited transparency made them feel as though they were aware but ultimately the details shocked many.
That part had not been made public, and I agree that if he minimized his past it’s disqualifying.
That doesn’t make his past alone disqualifying.
Also, I’m uncomfortable with letting any politicians interact with people younger than voting age. Politics isn’t for children. I consider that indoctrination.
The pain and suffering of a business owner victim who lost supply to shoplifting is fundamentally different from the pain and suffering of a victim of sexual abuse. I’m surprised that needs to be said.
I think two concerns can equally be valid, and both held in the minds of party leaders who wanted Balk to resign.
First, that minors, and their parents, could be rightfully concerned about being put in contact with someone of Balk’s criminal history when they’re just showing up to knock doors or make calls. (And, what often happens after a volunteer shift ends…socializing, having pizza, coffee, that kind of thing.)
Second, that it looks bad. It’s the Sussex DEMOCRATS, a partisan political organization. Its whole reason for existing is to get more votes for democratic candidates. How things looks is a very, very, very reasonable concern that party leaders should have.
Nice strawman. I didn’t say anything about shoplifting. That’s you trying to take the most minimum crime available. Now do assault.
Yes, I agree, the appearance is a very reasonable concern. And that’s all the reason there is for you and Democratic leaders. I’m glad that you said so. Now get them to admit it.
What you fail to account for is that the people who know him best, Sussex Democrats, trust him. The people who don’t – you, I assume, but I can’t know from your anonymity – do not.
You’ll be welcome at the ball.
Anon, I completely agree and reject Alby’s straw man characterization. The infighting over the resignation of a sex offender perfectly reflects the broader dysfunction within the Democratic Party right now. While most people with criminal histories deserve a second chance, the scope of that chance, and the industries they enter, must depend on the nature of their convictions.
It’s simply unreasonable to place a convicted child molester in a role tied to an organization that engages with children, whether as volunteers or future voters. Beyond the moral concern, the political optics alone are disastrous, a sex offender is far more likely to repel potential voters than attract them. The risk is far too great.
And let’s be honest, electeds have always been hypocrites. Why would anyone stick their neck out for a sex offender? I haven’t seen DL reaching out to Balk with any job offers.
‘I haven’t seen DL reaching out to Balk with any job offers.’
Uh, you DO realize that we’re all volunteers here? We don’t get paid.
Is this officially Stoopid Commenters’ Day on the blog?
@Water Bill: You’re just telling me you don’t know what a straw man argument is. I said nothing about shoplifting. Anon inserted that into the argument to make it appear I was equating sex offenses with petty crime.
Nobody yet has told me whether victims of other crimes deserve as much performative empathy as we’re seeing in this thread for underage victims of sex crime. Anon’s straw man was their way of dodging the question.
Many elected officials who were surprised there was gambling in Casablanca are hypocrites. Mr. Balk’s 1986 crimes were no secrets. These “criminal justice reformers” merely forgot to add to their platforms and bills “unless you think you may lose votes. While we can point out the elected officials piling on Balk (led by Masters of Divinity recipient Chris Coons and State Representative Claire Snyder Hall ), and the equally hypocritical leadership of the State House and Attorney General Kathy Jennings, who knew of Jeff’s history, there are principled elected Democrats who respect the opinion of the people who know Jeff best, don’t condone his past transgressions but respect the person who turned his life around and was now leading Sussex County Democrats in an unpaid volunteer position. The resignation demand letter was signed by both US Senators, our Congresswoman, the Lt Governor, Attorney General and House Democratic leadership. Look at who didn’t sign.
Coons was the ring leader who had no problem calling Jeff Balk when it was “ good for Chris” but didn’t have the decency to call him and discuss the situation before making his demands. He did find time to demand the state party chair ask for Balk’s resignation and she followed the order from the man whose campaign committee would be the main funder of the 2026 state party campaign.
Coons is way past his “use by” date. This is the perfect time for a well-funded principled progressive to Primary him. On a lesser scale, that is what is happening in my RD – represented by the formerly progressive Snyder-Hall
Absolutely agree Coons started this bs hypocrisy and dear Evelyn followed behind. When that didn’t work Coions gets the posse to condemn Balk. Dear Claire couldn’t wait to change her support when she thought it would hurt her. And then couldn’t stop running her mouth and posting horrific crap to keep the pot stirred and then boiling over. Jeff has done a great job. The people including many RD14 committee members who have attacked, harassed and continued to stand on the mount of moral hypocrisy should be ashamed of themselves. And pain is pain. I am not condoning what was done 40 years ago but you can’t say ones persons pain is more than another’s.
And by the way kudos to Matt and Lydia for not signing the hypocritical decree for Balks resignation
Couldn’t agree more on Coons.
A challenger doesn’t have to start out ‘well-funded’. A grassroots campaign can generate money. Plus the fact that Chris Coons is funded by special interests should be a key element of any campaign against him.
He is simply not up to what should be the minimal standard of challenging Trump and his Fascist government at every turn.
BTW, this reminds me–I’m looking for a decent cartoonist to draw a caricature of Coons in a Gore-Tex jacket or space suit. Your choice.
So if its ok that balk raped kids years ago, we’re also that trump did too?
Who, exactly, is ‘OK’ with it?
Ya wanna be a commenter or a troll?
You can’t be both.
Seems like a lot of comments on this topic are “he paid his debt…” “suxco dems trusted him…” pedophilia is a crime that debts arent paid. any crime against a child is a debt that isnt repaid
Wrong. He paid his legal debt. You contrasted him with someone who will NEVER pay his legal debt.
Stop doubling down on stupidity.
Or I’ll pull the plug on your comments.
You’re the last person I would expect such an attitude from. You’ve never come across as Mr. Sensitive on other topics.
Some of you need to read the experts on the pathology of pedophilia. It is not regarded as a defect fixed by most rehabilitation. It endures for most lifetimes. So, prison time is typically not a fix.
True. Because of that those who go on for decades without re-offending are truly exceptions. Prison time by itself is not enough. Therapy during time in prison followed by years of counseling after release can make the difference. This is why offenders are removed from the registry after 25 years of no offenses of any type