An amended complaint was filed with the First District Court today by Plaintiff Jim Brannon in his lawsuit challenging the November 3, 2009, Coeur d’Alene city election.
The amendment filed today (included without attachments) removes Kootenai County, County Clerk Dan English, and former Kootenai County Election Administrator Deedie Beard as defendants in the case. It also seeks an injunction preventing the City from “installing” new City Council members at its first meeting in January 2010. This was requested because if the “new” City Council is “installed” and the election, all or part, is ultimately set aside, the newly installed status could bring into question the legality of business conducted in the interim.
Readers should have the patience and focus to read the original complaint filed by Jim Brannon and then read the amended complaint as well. Reading legal filings is neither easy nor entertaining, but if Jim Brannon’s allegations are proven in court, the evidence will reveal that for many years the Mayor and City Council of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, have grossly ignored their duty to the voters, a duty to properly supervise the City Clerk in her role as the City’s primary election official. The voters in Coeur d’Alene did not elect the City Clerk; we elected mayors and city councilmen with the reasonable expectation that they would diligently and faithfully perform their duties to oversee the work product of the City’s employees.
Though the mayors and councilmen have oversight duties and responsibilities, the City Clerk has a duty to comply with Idaho Code in the administration of municipal elections. In cooperation with the Idaho Secretary of State’s office, the Association of Idaho Cities prepared the 2009 Election Manual for City Clerks. The manual was available in print version at a nominal cost, and it was also available free to anyone via the Internet.
But it isn’t as if the City Clerk has to be an attorney. The City Attorney’s office is available to help the City Clerk interpret the law. However, voters must always remember that any attorney (except those elected or appointed to be judges), including those in the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney’s Office, is never a final authority. The City Attorney is nothing more than a very highly paid consultant. The client, in this case the Mayor and City Councilmen, is always free to accept, modify, or completely reject the City Attorney’s advice to them and the City Clerk. Ultimately, the responsibility for compliance with the law rests with the client, the Mayor and City Council. Blind and unquestioning over-reliance on the City Attorney’s advice can have adverse consequences as we reported in our October 2009 post titled Ignorance of the Law – SOP in CdA.
We hope that Coeur d’Alene’s lethargic non-voters as well as its diligent voters will pay close attention to Jim Brannon’s lawsuit as it progresses through the court. We are sure that some people are going to mount a propaganda attack accusing Brannon of forcing the City to “waste” money defending what they will intentionally and deceptively mischaracterize as “frivolous.” Those who purport to be concerned about the costs of the lawsuit need to consider this: The money spent on any election that does not comply with the law is money wasted. The “waste” is in noncompliance with the law, not in correcting the noncompliance.
Jim Brannon’s lawsuit is a good citizen’s contribution to ensure that elections and those charged with administering them comply with the law.
It’s been said that you can’t sue publicly elected officials for being nincompoops.
That is all changed as of today. An awkwardly-named US ethnic group called “Native Americans” will receive $3.4 BILLION from the US government (you and me) for ALLEGED mishandling of Indigian funds.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/12/09/us-to-pay-34-billion-to-settle-native-american-suit/
How does that pertain to Brannon?
Other than the Irish were treated WORSE than the indigenous people, the precedent is now established that you don’t actually have to PROVE malfeasance.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is the Vatican compared to the cda city council.
Comment by Zapatista — December 11, 2009 @ 9:04 am
I received an email from a regular reader who asked me to try and clarify what effect the requested injunction would have on the way the Council conducts business.
Think of the existing council as the “old” council. The “old” council will remain seated with full authority to act on behalf of the City until a “new” council is installed. If Brannon’s lawsuit results in a new election and the new election results in one or more of the incumbents (Kennedy, Goodlander, McEvers, or Bloem) being voted out, the “old” council will remain seated until the “new” council with its new members is installed.
Jim Brannon’s requested relief in the form of an injunction would simply ask the court to enjoin the City from declaring the “old” council members to be the “new” council until after his lawsuit and the subsequent election finally declares who the members of the “new” council will be. His concern, which is a concern that the CdA City Attorney should share, is that prematurely declaring the “old” council members to also be the “new” council members may bring into question the validity of any decisions by “new” council members prematurely installed and seated before the contested election is finally resolved. The injunction asks that the Court direct the City to not prematurely install “new” council members who may be unseated by the election contest. In other words, the “old” council would remain as the “old” council until the lawsuit and subsequent election, if any, is finally decided. Brannon’s proposed injunction requests that the court require the City to obey existing law and ensure continuity of lawful government by not installing the “new” council until its members have finally been determined.
Comment by Bill — December 11, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
I was reviewing the amended lawsuit. I was curious to the details that would actually change the outcome and I think I found it all – lots of it,besides the poll books being a mess. I really think Kennedy should step down if these are the facts – there is no reason for him to draw this out unless he is hoping for public opinion to defame Brannon some more and subsequently win a do-over? Kennedy lost. We should not have to wait 2 more months to fix this.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 16, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Well, I have about had it with some people. Some poster from the ‘other blog’ decided to lift the above comment and make some ugly remarks about me. If anyone ‘out there’ wants to assoicate me with a crack pipe along with other ugly namecalling – they better be able to prove it.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 16, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Well, it did not take long for that comment to bite the dust. Kudos to that blog for doing the right thing – removing it.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 16, 2009 @ 2:48 pm