Really? You believed the marginal news and tabloid gossip blogs when they said Jim Brannon’s election contest was over? As Molly used to say to Fibber, ” ‘Tain’t so, McGee!”
In fact, more and more people are beginning to “Get it.” True, the contest lawsuit is about restoring honest and competently administered elections to Kootenai County, a condition that has been sadly neglected for many years. But as Jim Brannon and his attorney Starr Kelso recognized from Day One, this contest has statewide impact.
How so? Well, on January 1, 2011, there is a whole passel of new state election laws that take effect, and those laws were passed at the behest of Secretary of State Ben Ysursa and the various county clerks (like Kootenai County Clerk Dan English) whose eyes may not have been as wide open as they ought to have been to the potential for election fraud and manipulation. I’ll grossly generalize the cumulative effects of those new laws; their effect is to bring all municipal elections in Idaho under the administrative and operational jurisdiction of the county clerks.
How widespread are these changes? Here are three pages I scanned from Idaho Code, Title 50, Chapter 4, Municipal Elections. Wherever you see an [expression in brackets], that is a change to existing law. First page[[[[[Second page[[[[[Third page
If I were a state legislator from anywhere in Idaho, I would be very concerned that the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the County Clerks may not have realized the vulnerabilities in the existing (pre- January 1, 2011) state laws. The defects and vulnerabilities in the old laws may not have been detected and corrected before the new laws were written. Ysursa and Wasden have some ‘splainin’ to do if by laziness or intention they led legislators down the garden path.
All of the changes shown are contained in a handful of Legislative Bills adopted in 2009 with effective dates beginning in January 2011. To put election law issues into perspective it is interesting to note that even with the changes which were supposed to “clean up” the election laws, there were 23 bills introduced this year, 2010 on election problems with many waiting the governor’s signature. A recent history of election law issues in the legislature reveals that in 2009, 17 introduced with 3 enacted; 2008, 28 introduced with 8 enacted; 2007, 27 introduced with 5 enacted. Not all of these were city or county election issues. I show this to reveal how election laws are constantly under review and amended over and over to correct defects from poor oversight.
Comment by Gary Ingram — April 6, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
I don’t know what I believe anymore, other than I want it all to go away.
Bill, they just figured out they had to update the Contract for Idiot’s Law here in Idaho. What do you expect from these people? Intelligence?
The other problem, Bill, is people like you are not a state legislator. Those who are decent enough to do something right are either ran out or quit. I remember the day that local area representatives in a neighboring county did not care that the privacy rights of citizens were being violated through illegal phone recordings via the local cop shop. That was Scott Reed’s case. He lost. Those same people and their cohorts are now running for county commissioner and they direct emergency management. Those same people appoint judges. Sometimes the governor appoints judges, yes – the same guy who used to practice his bullwhip skills on the statehouse lawn (I read that somewhere) of course through the reccomendation of the State Bar that claims to be a private agency and has nothing to do with the state. Then those same people manage the election process when it goes to court. It’s just flat scary, that’s why I want it to go away. But, it’s nice to know if I move to Canada, I can still vote from the judge’s spouse’s business address. Nothing is going to change unless someone comes along and decides to see if his/her handcuffs work.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 6, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Apparently Ysursa, Wasden, and English were absent on the day that “correct defects from poor oversight” was discussed. They blew it.
Comment by Bill — April 6, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
Bill, do you know if Simpson gave a reason when he reduced the bond? I have not read anything that gives any information save that it was reduced. A big cheer to Jorgenson for his contribution to the bond fund. That act alone would guarantee my vote. Stebbijo, this is an example that not everybody in Idaho is bent. There are good honest people as this act demonstrates.
Comment by rochereau — April 7, 2010 @ 10:24 am
rochereau, I absolutely agree. I just read the peice about Jorgenson and I am totally renewed. He packs a lot of clout and this is a super huge endorsement for the people. Wonderful news.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 7, 2010 @ 11:07 am
rochereau and Stebbijo,
I don’t know if Judge Simpson gave a reason when he reduced the bond. You could go to the Court Records office and ask to see his order. It may give an explanation.
I just read the article about Senator Jorgenson’s donation. Good for him not only for giving a very generous donation but also for giving it for the right reason: The facts, all of them, surrounding this election contest and the administration of the November 3, 2009, City election need to come out in court where the public can hear and see them. This is the kind of information We, the People need to hold our public officials accountable.
Comment by Bill — April 7, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
Bill, re your post #6. It’a sad commentary that citizens have to wait for the courts to tell us what is going on with our local elections. And how is that ever going to happen with all the roadblocks being thrown up by Official Coeur d’Alene. What ever happened to investigative reporting and the publics’ right-to-know? There have been a few teasers published or broadcast so I guess folks do know something is going on. But what? Comments on blogs have been like drive by shootings, even from some public officials. Ignorance abounds as a result. Newspapers used to be where a story of this magnitude was investigated and reported, but not now, just sound bites or print bites and no follow up.
Comment by Gary Ingram — April 9, 2010 @ 4:52 pm
Well, I have jury duty on Monday. If they throw me out, I will ask to take a look. The problem also is it’s not that some of don’t want to check out these lawsuits – it costs a dollar a page to get a copy, money that the average joe does not have. I guess I could use the best interests of the public – in the Idaho Public Records Act.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 10, 2010 @ 6:17 am
Another option would be to coerce get Taryn Hecker back to work somehow. 😉
Comment by Stebbijo — April 10, 2010 @ 9:18 am
Stebbijo,
The most accurate and timely facts woven into a readable story by a good reporter will not get read if the editors and publishers spike the story in order to avoid offending advertisers.
Comment by Bill — April 10, 2010 @ 11:02 am
Couldn’t someone like Taryn go independent as a non profit and apply for grants? She has the creditials.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 10, 2010 @ 11:16 am