Mary Souza’s Newsletter, December 4, 2009
The legal challenge to the recent Coeur d’Alene city elections could end up helping all voters in Idaho. The silver lining in this stormy tussle is that the election laws of our state will be examined in fine detail by lawyers, judges, media and the public.
And some close scrutiny is probably long overdue.
Did you know that to get a hunting or fishing license here, you must prove that you’ve lived here for SIX MONTHS? If you don’t have a driver’s license, you have to prove your residency by showing TWO of the following:
–rent receipts or mortgage statements for the previous six months
–home utility bills for the previous 6 months
–a notarized statement from an employer on business letterhead
–proof of voter registration dated 6 months prior
(Info from Idaho Fish and Game web site)
And you must renew your hunting/fishing license and reconfirm your address EVERY YEAR.
But to register to vote, or even to run for elected office, you must only live in the municipality for 30 DAYS.
The most famous local story is when Mike Kennedy ran for CdA city council back in 2005. His house was not in CdA. His wife and their six children lived in the home that was not in CdA. (They were not divorced or separated.) He ran his business out of his home office in the home that was not in CdA. But Mike claimed he fit the residency requirement to run for elected office in CdA because, for 30 days beforehand, he “rented” a basement bedroom from a friend who lived in the city.
City clerk Susan Weathers, in charge of city elections, and chief city attorney Mike Gridley agreed that the residency requirement was fulfilled. (Kennedy had worked as a key person on Gridley’s failed campaign for Idaho legislature the year before and Gridley openly donated to Kennedy’s city council campaign.)
I digressed a bit into that story because it’s so incredulous (no conflict of interest between Gridley and Kennedy, oh no), but also because it’s important to understand this: These are the same officials who are involved in this year’s election challenge!
The Kootenai County elections department is also involved in the legal challenge because the city contracted them to run part of the election this time. The elections department responded to inquiries about where certain voters live, by saying “we’re not the residency police”. Well, gee, maybe we should put Fish & Game in charge, they seem to have a closer handle on who actually lives here!
And once you have registered to vote, you’re on the honor system to report if you change addresses or move out of the area. You certainly do not have to re-register each year, or ever…or even prove that it’s YOU voting! There’s no ID required!
Think about how often you are asked for ID in this day and age. You can’t cash a check without proving your identity. You can’t use a credit card without it, you can’t even shop at Costco without showing a photo ID card.
Yet our most important freedom tool, our vote, seems, by comparison, to be casually bantered about. No ID required to vote. No renewal or proof of address. The integrity of our election system is essential to our trust in government. If we, the people, don’t believe that our elections are fair, it will undermine the very fabric of our democracy.
So I’m glad we are getting out a very big spotlight to shine on the details of Idaho election law. We, the voters, may find ourselves lucky that Jim Brannon’s race against incumbent Mike Kennedy was decided by only FIVE VOTES. And Dan Gookin’s run against incumbent Deanna Goodlander had only a 29 vote difference. Maybe these incredibly, historically close races will be the impetus for improved laws, processes and procedures. And maybe the increased focus and publicity will convince reluctant voters that the system can be fair and every single legitimate vote does count.
**********************
Mary Souza is a 22 year resident of CdA, local small business owner and former P&Z Commissioner. Her opinions are her own. To sign up for the free weekly newsletter, or access a free archive of past columns, visit www.marysouzacda.com Comments can be sent to marysouzacda@gmail.com. Please visit the local issues web site www.OpenCdA.com for more discussion.
Welcome to Corrupt an’ Lame!
There is no reason why people can’t vote online with a registered IP address and password. To register, a voter would have to physically go to the registrar’s office and swear legal residency anytime once a year . The requirements would have to be AT LEAST what getting a hunting license is. When the % is less than 30% voting, an obvious problem exists rather than the simplistic “the voters are just apathetic.” Look outside (it’s 22degrees and icy). Weather is a factor as well as multiple voting locations and the fact that people are racing around just trying to stay ahead of impending fiscal doom.
A cynic might say that the “elected class” wants to maintain the status quo in order to stave off the dreaded “Term Limits” movement…a concept both major parties are unified in loathing.
Comment by Zapatista — December 5, 2009 @ 8:30 am
I would like to know who the “friend” is whose house that Kennedy claimed to rent from. Did they share a bed? Did the friend have a separate apt? Was it zoned for one? Didn’t the “Friend’s” ex vote in this election even though she lived outside the country?
Didn’t the final campaign contribution list come out this last week? If Kennedy’s totals are between $28000 and $32000 then he will have spent $60,000 in two campaigns for an $800 month job. That’s some serious dedication to being a public servant.
(cough)
Comment by Zapatista — December 5, 2009 @ 10:47 am
I don’t know about anybody else but I plan on voting for Mike “the” Kennedy solely because he has that fresh air of wholesomeness and goodness so rarely found in today’s pestulent and feculent elective class.
…uuummm. Please retract that last post as I was temporarily kidnapped and was under the influence of the evil Zognars of an adjoining dimension who worship chunky moral [word deleted by Bill] such as Mr. Kennedy.
I’m back now…albeit somewhat disheveled, and hope to re-enter the discussion arena soon.
While I’m recovering from my epic, y’all can carry on…
Comment by Zapatista — December 6, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
I’ve wondered about the low percentage of voters in each election for years and I’ve recently had a ‘road to damascus’ moment.
Here’s my theory- Jury duty is determined how? By voter lists. The ordeal of jury duty is loathed by most citizens for the following reasons: it takes them away from jobs and family; it is a deep cost to them while they watch attorneys prattle and prance at $100-500 per hour; it shows that the entire system is simply there to subsidize the American Trial Lawyers Association; it has nothing to do with ‘Justice’ and they realize that the process has nothing to do with ‘good citizenship.’
Why not use the federal census and/or DMV records as well as voting records? Because then the ‘jury of peers’ would be more realistic and elections would be less “controlled.”
Every so often the term ‘tort reform’ is bandied about with no follow thru. Why not legal system reform?
Some suggestions: reduce the number of jurors to 5. Pay them what they’re paid at their day jobs. Put a 20% charge on all awards to pay for “the system”. Raise filling fees dramatically (but have a reserve for qualified “poor” people).
Allow the “peers” (aka jurors) to submit questions to the judge anout the case. Allow jurors to see any info about the case they want. Allow the jurors to determine if the loser should pay for costs (this would rapidly shrink frivolous lawsuits) and use the afformentioned federal census and/or DMV records as well as voting records.
These are just a few. Any others?
Comment by Zapatista — December 13, 2009 @ 9:57 am
Zapatista,
I deleted one word in post #3, not because it was intrinsically offensive but because you applied it specifically to Kennedy.
Comment by Bill — December 13, 2009 @ 10:06 am