Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio loses bid to have his criminal record wiped clean

[TomSlick]

32. I think I agree about the effect of the conviction and pardon in civil litigation.

As the learned judge ruled in this case, the pardon does not erase the fact of the conviction, just the consequences.

I am less confident a State could sustain legislation that purported to impose disabilities for a federal conviction that had been subject of a presidential pardon. A state legislature cannot limit the presidential pardon power of the US Constitution.

I have no problem with the proposition that a State highest court is free to interpret language in its state constitution that is identical to language in the US Constitution as saying something different than SCOTUS's interpretation. SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the meaning of the US Constitution while each State's highest court is the final arbiter of the meaning of its State constitution - subject, of course, to the limitation that a State Constitution (as interpreted by it highest court) cannot contain provisions that are forbidden by the US Constitution (as interpreted by SCOTUS.)