Dianna Duran resigns: How often do women resign amid scandals?

Dianna Duran became the latest public official to leave her seat in disgrace on Thursday, when she stepped down before pleading guilty to charges that she used campaign funds to feed a gambling addiction. 

Susan Montoya Bryan/AP/File
Former New Mexico Secretary of State Dianna Duran has pleaded guilty to embezzlement and other charges. She stepped down amid a fraud investigation alleging she siphoned hundreds of thousands of dollars from her election account to fund her gambling addiction.

Dianna Duran pleaded guilty on Friday to two felony counts of embezzlement and four misdemeanors relating to her misuse of campaign funds.

In state district court in Santa Fe, Ms. Duran, who had served as the New Mexico secretary of state until the day before, admitted that she siphoned off hundreds of thousands of dollars from her election account and spent the money at casinos around the state. 

According to a court document, investigators at New Mexico Attorney General Office conducted an investigation after receiving a confidential tip that numerous cash deposits had been made into Duran's account that were inconsistent with her known sources of income.

Duran withdrew more than $430,00 from ATMs at various casinos throughout New Mexico in 2013 and 2014, according to court records

Duran, a Republican who was in the middle of her second term as secretary of state, was one of New Mexico's highest-ranking elected officials.

New Mexico GOP Chairman Debbie Maestas said Friday that Duran's resignation will help restore credibility to the secretary of state's office.

"Voters rightfully demand that our elected officials be accountable to the law, and our party will continue to advocate for accountability in government," Ms. Maestas said in a statement.

This makes three New Mexico secretaries of state in a row who have faced legal troubles for their time in office, reports KOB 4 TV.

Duran's predecessor, Mary Herrera, faces two lawsuits after being accused of ordering employees to collect signatures for her failed 2010 re-election bid. Former Attorney General Gary King decided there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute her.

The secretary of state before her, Rebecca Vigil Giron, was accused of embezzling federal voter education money. She was indicted in 2009, two years after she left office.

As women fill more seats in public office, the number of women facing political and personal scandals has grown, too.

Earlier this month, the former head of Chicago Public Schools Barbara Byrd-Bennett pleaded guilty to several counts of federal corruption for her alleged role in a scheme to steer more than $23 million in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) contracts to education-training companies in exchange for kickbacks and bribes worth about $2.3 million.

Ms. Byrd-Bennett faces 20 counts of mail and wire fraud, each of which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison – up to 400 years in total.

Last summer, a New York assemblywoman was forced out of office after pleading guilty to two felonies, the New York Times reported.

Gabriela Rosa admitted to committing bankruptcy fraud and accepting an illegal campaign contribution of $1,000 from an unnamed “representative of a foreign government.”

Ms. Rosa also admitted to entering a sham marriage with a United States citizen so as to obtain citizenship. She was sentenced to a year and a day in prison in October 2014.

A judge will decide if Duran should get probation or prison time in December.

Terri Apter, a psychologist at Cambridge university, told the Telegraph after a high-profile sex scandal that men and women have different reactions to power. "When men are in powerful positions they are saying, 'I have this power and I see this as a stable thing,' " she said, "whereas a woman who might be in a comparable position might say 'I am here today, how do I guard it, how do I maintain it, how do I prove I am worthy of it.' "

As more women fill legislatures and boardrooms, Dr. Apter's theories are being tested.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.