Honoring his commitment to issue pardons throughout his administration — and in a fully transparent manner — Governor Andy Beshear issued five pardons this week. Four of the pardon recipients had been adjudged guilty of drug offenses and the other of a felony DUI-related offense.
In response to vocal opposition to the manner in which his predecessor liberally exercised the pardoning power after losing the gubernatorial election, Beshear commented in 2019, "You will not see these type of actions out of me. What you will also get is an explanation of the reasons behind any of the pardons that we ultimately give, because there needs to be transparency in this process."
https://apnews.com/article/elections-campaigns-kentucky-matt-bevin-f89e…
In January, 2021, Beshear pardoned three people convicted years ago of non-violent drug offenses. Prior to that, Beshear pardoned three individuals convicted of non-violent drug or alcohol offenses from years earlier.
https://amp.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article248799680.html
In 2001, the Kentucky Attorney General determined that pardon application materials and the Governor's statement of reasons for granting pardon were accessible to the public, reasoning:
"We reject the arguments advanced by the Office of the Governor in support of the position that pardon application materials may be withheld from public inspection until the Governor files his statement of reasons on each application with the Secretary of State. It is the opinion of the Attorney General that Section 77 of the Constitution of Kentucky mandates disclosure of the application materials, with the limited exceptions noted above, upon receipt, and the statement of reasons upon execution of the written instrument granting or denying pardon. This position is consistent with the intent of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1890 in framing Section 77, and best serves the ends of justice."
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2001/01ORD029.doc
The current Attorney General deflected the issue in a 2020 open records decision.
https://ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2020/20-ORD-136.pdf
(From the Attorney General's 2091 open records decision:
"One of the propelling reasons for the call of [the 1890 Constitutional Convention] by the people" of Kentucky was the perceived evil growing out of the exercise of the pardon power. Vol. l, p. 1339, Debates, Constitutional Convention 1890.
Delegate Charles J. Bronston of Fayette County, championed the cause of openness. On November 17, 1890, he declared:
'Let the Governor publish those letters to the world; and let each and every man within the borders of Kentucky read them . . . . To prevent the indiscriminate application to the Governor . . . let it be understood that when a letter is written, it is not to go into a hole in the Executive Office, but it is to be spread on the record, and read by each and every man in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.'
Vol. l, p. 1325, Debates, Constitutional Convention 1890. And later:
"[T]ake the Executives out of the murky pool wherein these men, from personal interests, are constantly pouring into their ears false statements and making the law trampled under foot and degraded. Place them above it. Let them understand that they are to be held responsible.'
Vol. I, p. 1327, Debates, Constitutional Convention 1890.
The amendments were seen as a way to 'improve [the] people . . .[by] enlighten[ing] that people,' Vol. l, p. 1252, and as a means of 'purifying the evidence that may be brought before [the Governor],' Vol. l, p. 1288, 'that those interested may know his reasons for so exercising this high and dangerous trust, and that he may be shielded from misrepresentations by those interested in securing his clemency.' Vol. l, p. 1340. In sum, Delegate Jep C. Jonson of McLean County stated, '[T]he act of the Governor in making these remissions is a public act, and . . . no sort of private influence can properly enter into his consideration as to whether he ought to grant or withhold a pardon.' Vol. 2, p. 1523. From these debates, we must infer that the intent of the delegates was to maximize accountability through public access").
