October 6, 2010

Election Contest Decision

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 6:34 am


In a 20-page memorandum decision delivered via fax on Tuesday, Judge Charles Hosack confirmed “…the election result of Mike Kennedy’s election to Seat #2 on the City Council for the City of Coeur d’Alene in the November 3, 2009, Municipal election.”

Here is Judge Hosack’s memorandum decision.

Here is attorney Starr Kelso’s press release on behalf of Jim Brannon.


  1. Eric,
    I believe the number of votes needed to win are in the deleted emails on deedie beards computer.

    The other thing is, I know EVERY single person I vote for/against and WHY. I do not check boxes blindly.

    Comment by concerned citizen — October 6, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

  2. Bill when is the scheduled appointment you have with the court?

    Comment by Ancientemplar — October 6, 2010 @ 8:21 pm

  3. Ancientemplar,

    My trial is scheduled for 4 p.m. on Tuesday, October 12, in Judge Hosack’s court. We don’t yet know which courtroom that will be in, so if you’re thinking of attending, I’d suggest calling the civil clerk at 208-446-1160 on Tuesday morning and asking. All you need to give the clerk is the time of the trial and the judge’s name. We are not exactly clear on whether this going to be a civil trial or a criminal trial. At the first hearing, the Judge explicitly notified my attorney and me it would be civil, however the nature of the allegation and the sanctions available to the court make it criminal under Idaho statutes and case law.

    Comment by Bill — October 7, 2010 @ 6:33 am

  4. Thank you Bill. Apparently the verdict on this trial depended on the definition of a word that had no firm legal (in ID) definition. My question all along was what exactly was the burden of proof based on. As I now understand, Judge Hosack decided that, while there may have been irregularities (you think??), they were not premeditated to throw the election. So intent was the deciding factor??? IMO this entire mess was caused by sloppy inattention to duty. Should Dan English go, you bet. Will he, not likely. Will the process be tightened up? How are we to know?

    Bill, so now the judge claims you committed a civil tort? Can’t wait to hear that “definition”.

    Comment by rochereau — October 7, 2010 @ 10:05 am

  5. rochereau,

    No, it was Councilman Mike Kennedy through his attorney Scott Reed who presented the Court with a motion to hold me in contempt. Since the matter has not yet come to trial, I am not going to comment on the substance here.

    As for the burden of proof, to prevail at trial Jim Brannon needed to prove to the Court that one (and only one) of the six grounds identified in Idaho Code 34-2001 had been met.

    Brannon had no obligation to prove that someone had premeditated to throw the election. That wording implies criminal conduct, and that would have to be properly investigated by the State of Idaho.

    I have little confidence that the process will be tightened up. The systemic, statutory failures were caused by inattention and dereliction by the Idaho Secretary of State and the county clerks in Idaho. They had a duty to keep Idaho’s legislators apprised of needed changes and updating, and they all failed in their duty. Yet you can be sure the aforementioned public officials will be the ones whom our legislators turn to for solutions. The ass-covering has already begun.

    Comment by Bill — October 7, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2016 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved