So much for the presumption of innocence.

If CONVICTED, they did receive due process.

Thank you for proving my point. The Question (#3) is to remove not upon conviction but upon indictment.
Historically, the membership of a legislative body has been delegated to the body itself, allowing the Senate or House to remove if an indictment or other circumstances showed a compelling reason to remove the individual. Now, however, the mere accusation is going to be conclusive as to remove a politician. Do you really think indictment and conviction are equivalent? if you do, you need to review the definitions of the terms involved.

I must say I read an article that sounded like the removal would be automatic upon indictment, which is where my earlier comments came from. Obviously, if someone pleads no contest or guilt, automatic removal should be the norm. However, I still wonder if a constitutional amendment is needed to do something the chambers of the legislature have been charged with monitoring for a couple hundred years....why are they not accountable and doing their job?