Embattled KY lawmaker, running unopposed, likely to be reelected. What happens next?
Kentucky state Rep. Daniel Grossberg, who has been all but abandoned by fellow Democrats amid accusations of sexual harassment and unwanted touching by multiple women, is slated to win reelection Tuesday.
Grossberg, who has refused calls to resign over the allegations, is running unopposed for a second term in Louisville’s 30th House district, which includes portions of the West Buechel, Watterson Park, Poplar Hills and Lynnview neighborhoods.
Since late July, the Herald-Leader has published multiple stories detailing accounts from eight women who have accused the 46-year-old of sexual harassment and unwanted physical contact. Grossberg has steadfastly denied any impropriety but announced in September he was “in treatment” to help curb his “impulsive behavior.”
Since the Herald-Leader reporting began, nearly all of his legislative privileges have been revoked indefinitely, including his ability to caucus with members of his party, his office and his legislative aides.
In other words, though he is slated to win election to serve a second two-year term, party leadership has severely limited Grossberg’s ability to participate in state representative work.
Once reelected, what happens next?
Grossberg refused an in-person, on-the-record interview with the Herald-Leader about his future. Instead, Grossberg and his attorney, Frankfort litigator Anna Whites, requested that questions to him be submitted via email.
Grossberg did not respond to any of those questions, which centered on his plans for future legislative work despite not being in a caucus, the ethics commission’s investigation, whether or not he intends to continue serving in this limited capacity, and whether he anticipates facing a vote to remove him, once reelected.
The allegations against Grossberg
House Democratic leadership first called for a formal investigation into Grossberg’s conduct this summer, but it’s not clear when that investigation will be complete or whether the findings will be made public.
On July 30, the Herald-Leader published its first story outlining text messages Grossberg sent to three women, often late at night and unsolicited. The women described them as “weird” and “creepy.”
This story coincided with House Democratic leadership’s request that the Legislative Research Commission, a watchdog arm of state government that polices the conduct of elected officials, formally investigate the first-term lawmaker for his conduct.
After the story published, House leadership voted to temporarily boot Grossberg from their caucus and later removed him from all interim legislative committees he was assigned to serve on, before also formally requesting the Legislative Ethics Commission investigate the allegations.
Less than a month later, on Aug. 20, the newspaper published accounts from three more women, who alleged the lawmaker had sexually harassed them over messaging apps and in person.
And on Sept. 20, after the Herald-Leader reported that Grossberg had been banned from life from a Louisville strip club for attempting to touch a dancer’s genitals on stage, and that he’d also offered to pay another dancer up to $5,000 if she agreed to have sex with him.
This prompted House Democratic leadership to permanently expel Grossberg from the caucus and call for his resignation.
Removal from caucus means he is not allowed to vote for who should serve in House Democratic leadership and cannot attend caucus meetings, during which policy and votes are discussed among party members.
Gov. Andy Beshear and Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman have called on Grossberg to resign, as has Senate Democratic leadership, Kentucky’s lone Democratic Congressman Morgan McGarvey and a number of individual lawmakers. The state party also banned Grossberg from its events.
The investigation into Grossberg’s conduct
In September, the Legislative Ethics Commission unanimously voted to move forward with their formal inquiry, saying there is “reason to believe (he) has committed or is about to commit a violation” of the state ethics code, ethics commission Chair Dave Nicholas said.
“This determination means only that the alleged violations merit further inquiry and is not a finding that (Grossberg) has violated the ethics code,” he added.
In any probe the commission decides to take up, during the formal inquiry stage, the commission will ultimately decide whether there’s probable cause to believe a violation of the statutory conduct code has occurred, said commission Executive Director Emily Dennis.
“If they don’t find probable cause, the case is dismissed,” Dennis said this week. “If they find probable cause, they can either choose to deal with it as a confidential reprimand of the violator, or they can initiate an adjudicatory proceeding.”
The commission is more likely to confidentially reprimand if they find that “due to mitigating circumstances” the actions in violation of the code did not lead to “significant economic advantage or gain by the alleged violator, lack of significant economic loss to the state, or lack of significant impact on public confidence in government”
In a confidential reprimand, a copy of that reprimand is provided to House leadership as well as the violator. The commission would only consider making the reprimand public if the violator does so, first, Dennis said.
But an adjudicatory proceeding is public from beginning to end. Similar to a court hearing, testimony is taken under oath, and rules of evidence and civil procedure apply, Dennis said.
It’s more likely the commission will take this route if there’s stronger evidence to suggest an alleged violator used their position for significant economic gain, or that their actions impacted the public’s confidence in government.
After an adjudicatory proceeding, if the commission finds “clear and convincing proof” the ethics code has been violated, they can make a series of recommendations, according to the code:
- Recommend the violator be censured or expelled
- Fine a violator no more than $2,000
- Issue a public reprimand
- Issue a cease and desist order to the violator
- Recommend the violator be sanctioned.
In cases of criminal activity, the commission can make recommendations to the state Attorney General, county or commonwealth’s attorneys.
Though the code does not assign a time limit to the commission’s investigations, they try to be expedient, Dennis said.
“We’re not going to sit on an investigation. We move along with it,” she added. “They just take time.”
Campaign delinquency list
Grossberg could face fines even if it’s not a stipulation of the ethics commission’s findings.
Though his name will remain on House District 30 ballots, his campaign missed the 60-day and 30-day campaign finance filing deadlines ahead of Nov. 5, putting him on the “delinquency” list, according to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance.
“Failure to file reports makes a candidate delinquent and subjects them to fines,” John Steffen, executive director of KREF, said in an email last week. “So, yes, he is delinquent and the repercussions would be monetary fines.”
When asked if Grossberg had been fined, Steffen said, “not yet.”
Grossberg did not respond to an emailed question about his plans to file campaign finance reports. However, he did file the overdue reports last Tuesday —after the Herald-Leader asked about them.
The only contributions that show up on the reports he’s filed are donation refunds from two Democratic House candidates, Aaron Currin and Matthew Lehman, who have called on him to resign.
What power do lawmakers have to remove him
Though Grossberg has refused to heed a chorus of calls from members of his own party to resign, the House could attempt to forcibly remove him from his post once the General Assembly gavels in for its regular session in January.
If the legislature wants to punish or jettison one of their own, they can do so by simply voting to “expel, fine or censure” a member with a two-thirds majority vote, according to Section 39 of the Kentucky Constitution.
“Each House of the General Assembly may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish a member for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member, but not a second time for the same cause,” it reads.
Members may vote to expel, fine or censure for “transgression of the rules or order and decorum, in speech or otherwise,” according to the constitution, and the the House or Senate can vote to expel in order to “punish a member for disorderly behavior,” according to state statute.
This story was originally published November 4, 2024 at 5:00 AM.
