



A state government, like a private club, is not the same as the federal government. OTOH, the state government differs from the private club in that it's part of the same overall legal structure. That's part of the reason I said I could see arguments each way.



The Arizona statute cited by Amimnoch in #15 suspends certain rights of "the person sentenced". Arpaio would have a good argument that, because he was never sentenced (his being the unusual case of a pre-sentencing pardon), he's not under any of those disabilities. The question would arise only if a state law were more carefully worded, so that no issue of statutory interpretation would benefit the person convicted. If a state chose to impose certain lifetime disabilities on a person convicted, and the statute specifically stated that the disabilities applied in the case of a federal conviction and subsequent pardon, would that be unconstitutional?



There's language on



10. Effect of a pardon



While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction. Therefore, even if you are granted a pardon, you must still disclose your conviction on any form where such information is required, although you may also disclose the fact that you received a pardon. In addition, most civil disabilities attendant upon a federal felony conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, and also may be removed by state action. Because the federal pardon process is exacting and may be more time-consuming than analogous state procedures, you may wish to consult with the appropriate authorities in the state of your residence regarding the procedures for restoring your state civil rights.



Incidentally, that web page also notes that, under the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations, there's a mandatory five-year waiting period, ha ha:



You may make a written request for a waiver of this requirement. However, waiver of any portion of the waiting period is rarely granted and then only in the most exceptional circumstances.



So now we know that "temporary political advantage of the President" constitutes one of the "most exceptional circumstances" that will support a waiver.

It's clear that saying "removes any disability" is too broad. If a private club has a rule that no one convicted of a crime may join, and it interprets that rule as applying even if the person convicted has been pardoned, that's perfectly legal.A state government, like a private club, is not the same as the federal government. OTOH, the state government differs from the private club in that it's part of the same overall legal structure. That's part of the reason I said I could see arguments each way.The Arizona statute cited by Amimnoch in #15 suspends certain rights of "the person sentenced". Arpaio would have a good argument that, because he was never sentenced (his being the unusual case of a pre-sentencing pardon), he's not under any of those disabilities. The question would arise only if a state law were more carefully worded, so that no issue of statutory interpretation would benefit the person convicted. If a state chose to impose certain lifetime disabilities on a person convicted, and the statute specifically stated that the disabilities applied in the case of a federal conviction and subsequent pardon, would that be unconstitutional?There's language on the DoJ pardon page that suggests by inference that state-law disabilities are removed, but doesn't say so expressly:Incidentally, that web page also notes that, under the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations, there's a mandatory five-year waiting period, ha ha:So now we know that "temporary political advantage of the President" constitutes one of the "most exceptional circumstances" that will support a waiver.