Editor’s note: This editorial appeared in Wednesday’s edition of our sister paper, the Capital Gazette. Our editorial boards operate independently, but we wholeheartedly agree on this issue and could not have said it better.

Former Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold sees a path to redemption through the legal maze, asking the courts to set aside his 2013 conviction for abusing the power of his office.

Whatever the legal merits of his argument, Mr. Leopold is as misguided now as he was while serving in office. He exhibited a breathtaking moral bankruptcy that betrayed the confidence of voters. By filing this appeal, it’s clear that hasn’t changed.

We were dubious when he made the case to voters in last year’s election that he had paid his dues, learned his lessons and was ready for public service again. The voters in his Pasadena district wisely declined to take him up on the offer, soundly rejecting him in the Republican primary for two seats in the House of Delegates.

If we understand the major thrust of his argument, his request for the court to vacate his conviction rests on the notion that his attorneys did not provide adequate defense at trial.

In a stunning legal strategy, Mr. Leopold and his new attorney provided as evidence supporting this argument the previously undisclosed grand jury testimony of his one-time scheduling assistant, Patty Medlin. He says his attorneys felt her testimony was not enough to convict him — and were proven wrong.

If this reaches a full court hearing, Mr. Leopold plans to claim that a competent defense would have questioned disparities between her grand jury testimony and what Ms. Medlin said at trial.

So, Mr. Leopold will ask this county to relive again Ms. Medlin’s sworn testimony that he used his office to sexually harass women, coerced his staff into doing campaign work and appeared more worried about how it would look if the public learned he had sex in a county vehicle in a mall parking lot than the incredible misjudgment involved in the act itself.

Go back and re-read that paragraph. We’ll wait.

Got it? Those are among the elements of Ms. Medlin’s testimony he has not challenged.

Instead, Mr. Leopold is focused on the timing of when Ms. Medlin changed his catheter bag following back surgery, whether she was forced to do it and whether he could have done it himself. He is not, apparently, arguing it didn’t happen. He just wants to poke holes in her credibility long after the verdict was rendered.

So much for lessons learned and dues paid.

By filing this request, Mr. Leopold makes clear that he does not understand what he did wrong.

It may not be a crime, but elected officials don’t get to stand on the fourth floor of the Arundel Center with binoculars ogling passing women and not pay a penalty.

They don’t get to use county resources to collect information on political enemies — as a judge later determined Mr. Leopold did — without revealing themselves as someone in thrall to the abuse of power.

We don’t know if Mr. Leopold’s argument will win the day. We doubt it. We hope not.

What we do know is that by filing this, Mr. Leopold surrenders any chance of regaining the one thing he probably cherished above all — the respect of this community.

—The Capital Gazette Editorial Board