On April 24, 2012, at 3:40 p.m. the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, acting as counsel of record for Kootenai County Clerk Cliff Hayes, filed with the District Court a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and a Motion for Expedited Hearing on Petition for Declaratory Judgment in the Coeur d’Alene recall. The Respondents are Recall CdA, Inc. and its registered agent Frank Orzell; the City of Coeur d’Alene, a municipal corporation; and City Councilmembers Kennedy, McEvers, and Goodlander as well as mayor Sandi Bloem.
The petition and motion ask the District Court to resolve the conflict between and ambiguity in Idaho Code 34-1704 and Idaho Code 34-1706. The essence of the controversy is whether the fifteen business days I.C. 34-1706 provides to the County Clerk to process the recall petitions is included in or in addition to the seventy-five calendar days I.C. 34-1704 grants to the petitioners to gather valid petition signatures.
The controversy needs to be resolved so that both the Kootenai County Clerk and the Coeur d’Alene City Clerk can perform their statutorily-prescribed duties. It is also important to Recall CdA, Inc., so it knows exactly how many days it has to gather valid petition signatures.
Although the petition is a civil action, it is not a traditional adversarial lawsuit with a plaintiff and defendant. Rather, it is a politically neutral action which asks the District Court to deliver a timely interpretation of the law in this particular matter so that all parties in the matter may know their respective time limits prescribed by law.
All sides in the recall issue will be served equally well by the timely resolution of this controversy, and it was highly appropriate for the Kootenai County Clerk to initiate the proceeding.
When the process and statutes are in any way ambiguous asking the court for a declaratory judgment is a remedy under Idaho law that now the City is attempting to block as reported today in the Cda. Press. And who could miss the ridiculous overtones that by doing so the County Prosecutor and Clerk has taken sides by listing the parties in the action. This alone speaks volumes – there is no reason to get this matter properly resolved simply because statutes and executive decisions are challenged all the time and are not always correct because they have been enacted or decided.
This is a fundamental process of democracy that the City is once again working extremely hard to deny. Even if the Secretary of State submits a clear directive to the County Clerk, if it is potential wrong, then it should be challenged and corrected – simple as that! Hopefully no matter what this case will proceed to protect the integrity of the election laws and our system of government.
Comment by Appalled — April 28, 2012 @ 9:00 am