OpenCDA

September 18, 2010

Trial Update: Now We Wait

Filed under: General — mary @ 4:00 pm

Just as the judge ordered, the closing arguments started at 9:30 this morning and went until noon.  Good arguments were made and now the judge will take the case “under advisement”.  He expects his deliberation to take a couple of weeks because he’s tied up in a different trial next week.  Judge Hosack  hopes to issue a written verdict but said he might call the main players back to court and deliver his decision orally.

There’s absolutely no way of guessing what the verdict will be.  It was not a slam dunk for either side and the judge gave nods and indicators to both teams, in one way or another.  Here’s my take on today’s action: 

Starr Kelso used several more giant pieces of yellow table paper, which he put up on the wall and filled with the many, various configurations of totals, tallies and reports about the Absentee Ballot count.  His point was that, no matter how you add them up, the city’s number of 2051 has NO evidence or information to back up the validity of the votes; their number simply shows that 2051 pieces of paper were counted by the machine.  It does NOT tell where those ballots came from  or whether they were valid.

Starr pointed out that the Daily Reports kept in the Elections office were never compiled into the report required by state law, but additionally, those Daily Reports were never even totaled up and were never presented as evidence in court. ( I wonder why?  I bet if the total was 2051, or anything close, they would have been!)

Mr. Kelso also reminded the court of the 53 voters who went to the polls in split precincts (part in city, part in county) but the type of ballot they were given was not recorded in the poll book as required.  There were two witnesses who testified they were given the wrong ballots in their precinct, so the 53 others is significant.

Starr’s main point seemed to be that with all confusing numbers, and with all the unqualified or questionable voters, and all the errors and omissions by the election workers, the best thing the court could do is order a new election for Seat #2.  Starr quoted legal precedent that said, essentially, that  where the court has the power to order a new election it is the safest action to ensure the best interest of the voters. This remedy, Starr said, would make sure that no voters are disenfranchised; it would leave the outcome up the the voters.

***

Kennedy’s attorney, Peter Erbland, said that his team does not think that Mr. Brannon was wrong to bring the Election Challenge; that it is good and important to verify the election process.  He then started into the whole issue of the illegal voters, ticking off one and then the next, saying there are not enough of them to change the tide.

He then went on to the other section of the law that deals with errors.  Erbland got into the numbers and all the confusing ways of coming up with 2051 as the total of absentee ballots counted.  But he NEVER offered proof or evidence to show WHERE the 2051 voters came from.  There are NO reports that show 2051 valid voters.

His wrap up was that the State Supreme Court says that no legal voter should be disenfranchised.  Well, obviously, Erbland and Starr agree on that point!

Mike Haman, the hired city attorney was next.  (by the way, Mr. Gridley was not in court today) Haman was the most irritating, in my opinion.  He was trying to professional but failed when he griped about how the Challenge has dragged on for 10 months and netted only one vote.  (Really, Mr. Haman, you can find no  redeeming value in the process?)  He then turned on his Eddie Haskell mode and started kissing up to the judge, the city and the county.

I don’t know where Haman’s mind has been all week as he sat in the courtroom, but he obviously wasn’t listening to the testimony.  He said the number 2051 of absentee ballots counted by the machine on election night “invalidates the report of Nov. 6th, it invalidates the report of Nov. 16th, it invalidates the report of Nov. 24th and it invalidates the report of Aug. 19th.”  Really?  ALL of those reports list the voters and show evidence as to their legal standing to vote. Two of those reports actually match and say that 2041 is the total.  And the Chief Deputy Secretary of State tesitified that those two reports offer the MOST ACCURATE information of any presented.

The 2051 machine tally does NOT.  It is just the number of papers the machine counted, whether legal or valid, or not.

Again, Mr. Haman, there is NO REPORT in existence that gives evidence of 2051 legal, valid absentee voters in the last CdA election.

Now we wait and see what Judge Hosack decides.  It’s been a very interesting and educational week in court.

One thing’s for sure, those bashing the Election Challege by saying it is frivolous were certainly proven wrong this week, no matter what the judge’s ultimate ruling.  This case has a great deal of important substance.  It will be the basis of many changes in this state’s election law and, hopefully, drive improvements in our county and city election procedures as well.

Thank you Jim Brannon and Starr Kelso, for sticking with this effort, in spite of all the garbage that has been thrown at you.  The voters of Coeur d’Alene, Kootenai County and the State of Idaho are the beneficiaries of your hard work. Kudos!

52 Comments

  1. rochereau, I think the election process was so botched that Judge Hosack cannot possibly determine a winner so the fair thing to do would be to order a new election. However, I don’t think he will do that, instead I think he will try to ‘smooze’ his decision by acknowledging the irregularites ect.ect. but since Mike Kennedy is in the door and the vote was close it’s in the best interests of the people to keep it this way instead of putting more financial burden on the people. He will make it sound like a terrible injustice has occurred in order to pacify Brannon and supporters bla bla bla – then it will appear that Brannon is the bad guy if he chooses to appeal. I hope I am wrong.

    Comment by Stebbijo — September 24, 2010 @ 11:11 am

  2. The judge is bound burden of proof. My question is, will that have been met and what was the criteria. And sadly, your scenario is not beyond the realm of possibility.

    Comment by rochereau — September 24, 2010 @ 12:06 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2024 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved