In this Sunday’s front page, above-the-fold Coeur d’Alene Press story headlined Votes questioned, staff writer Tom Hasslinger begins to identify the evidence on which elector Jim Brannon has based his contest of the November 3, 2009, Coeur d’Alene City election. After reading Press reporter Hasslinger’s meticulous article, readers will see why the City and County attorneys have been trying so hard to keep the mounting evidence out of court and away from the public view.
Press reporter Hasslinger has raised an equally important issue the public should consider: Why is private citizen Jim Brannon forced to hire an attorney and a top-notch firm of private investigators to uncover violations of state voting laws? The Coeur d’Alene City Clerk is very well paid. The Kootenai County Clerk is very well paid. The Coeur d’Alene City Attorney and Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney are very well paid. The Idaho Secretary of State is very well paid. The Idaho Attorney General is very well paid. All of their agencies have taxpayer-funded budgets to assure honest elections in Idaho. Yet Jim Brannon, private citizen, is forced to hire an attorney and private investigators to unwind the November 3, 2009, election snafu? What is wrong with our public officials?
While reading this article, my overiding thought was that it is about time! Time that the press did some in depth reporting. Now if they would just do some “investigative reporting”. One very salient fact that was left out, was the fact that the Canadian resident gave, as his local address, one that just “happens” to be the same as the judges wifes office. If anything needs to be in the public forum, it is this. This alone should cause Simpson to recuse himself. As that is not going to happen, the presiding judge should remove him from this case. It would be a good reason for appeal, expensive and time consuming. As Kennedy has been seated, extended time is not in the best interest of justice.
Questions come to mind: the allegedly fraudulent absentee ballots can’t be changed. But what is to guarantee that those who voted illegally, in person, will be truthful as to their vote. Rhetorical question, if they lied as to where they lived, nothing they say can be considered truthful. Yes they supposedly throw those votes out….but exactly how is that decided. Our names aren’t on the ballots. My guess is, it must come down to the absentee ballots.
Comment by rochereau — April 11, 2010 @ 10:28 am
rochereau,
Your second question, the one about the truthfulness of someone who has already allegedly lied about residency, gets right to the heart of witness credibility. How does a judge or jury know which answers are truthful and which answers are not? That is why investigators, public and private, do not stop with what anyone says. They want independent corroboration or refutation. The more of either, the better.
The very points you have raised explain exactly why Jim Brannon’s election contest lawsuit needs to go to trial. Public trial. The facts need to come out, not just to settle issues surrounding the November 3, 2009, city election but also to help voters evaluate the performance of our elected and appointed officials.
Comment by Bill — April 11, 2010 @ 10:41 am
Fraud will continue unless the true offenders are punished and publicly exposed. Dan English and the City of CdA, represented by Scott Reed, seem to take the situation lightly. To chalk the fraudulent votes up to innocent mistakes and/or indicating that these violations are acceptable in the course of things does not speak well for English remaining in office. I can sympathize with voters mislead by the Elections Office and in this case would not label it as fraud. However, the election officials need to step up and take the blame.
A fraudulent vote is a vote denied to an honest voter. I do not take kindly to votes being cancelled out by fraud or “mistakes”.
Comment by citizen — April 11, 2010 @ 12:36 pm
citizen,
Let me clarify who’s who in the zoo, because it’s difficult to tell the players without a scorecard.
Dan English is the County Clerk, and in his official capacity as the County’s election poobah he is represented by the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, specifically by Deputy Prosecutor John “Witch Hunt” Cafferty.
The City of Coeur d’Alene and its aggregate City Council are represented by the Coeur d’Alene City Attorney Mike Gridley, specifically by contracted attorney Mike Haman.
Mike Kennedy, the individual rather than the City Councilman, is represented by Peter Erbland (Paine, Hamblen, Coffin, Brooke & Miller, LLP) and Scott Reed.
Jim Brannon is represented by Starr Kelso.
Comment by Bill — April 11, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
The queen of Real Estate works for Windermere. I wonder how the people who work for this very civic minded company feel about this publicity. I know she appeared on the list of Kennedy supporters and had Kennedy for council signs on at least two of her listings. Could her real estate license or her broker’s license be revoked over these voting shenanigans?
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — April 11, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
2c3i,
It’s hard to imagine that in lean real estate times an agent or broker would be goofy enough to risk alienating prospective buyers or renters by putting up campaign signs on listed residential properties. Using a client’s property to promote one’s own political viewpoint to the possible detriment of the client is certifiably loopy. Even if it doesn’t jeopardize a license, that is just not good business sense.
Comment by Bill — April 11, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
Some of the others listed in this article seem to have some interesting political ties as well. Ainsworth of Kootenai Title was also on the Kennedy supporter list. Tammy Farkes is County Commissioner, Rick Currie’s sister. Monica Pacquin rented a basement room to Mike Kennedy in 2005 so he could establish residency in Coeur d’Alene to run for City Council. I WANT MY LEGAL VOTE TO MEAN SOMETHING! If you know any of these people please take the opportunity to let them know that many Coeur d’Alene Citizens will not soon forget their actions which have cheapened our elections.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — April 11, 2010 @ 2:27 pm
Maybe it’s a good idea to remind our readers about election information. It is public information WHETHER you voted or not. As a registered voter, your name and address appear in the Poll Book at your voting place. When you go vote in person, or send in an absentee ballot, it is written in the book. So, by looking at the book, anyone can see whether or not John Q Public at 12345 Any Street, CdA, ID, voted on November 3, 2010. What is NOT public information is HOW you voted. No one can know that because the ballots have absolutely no identifying information on them; they are totally anonymous.
(I must tell you, as a side note, how surprised I was to look through my precinct’s Poll Book and see that some of my neighbors did not even bother to vote!)
In order to vote, John Q Public has to either sign the Poll Book next to his name and ADDRESS or send in his absentee ballot with his signature and ADDRESS. Either one constitutes verification that the address is correct. If the address is not correct, and John Q votes anyway, it could be voter fraud.
I am saddened by the obvious purposeful misuse of our voting system by those who lied about their home addresses. They took away not only someone elses legitimate vote, but they also defiled the integrity of our whole election system.
Comment by mary — April 11, 2010 @ 4:38 pm
From the CDA PRess article:
This story is huge. The connections are so massive that the story spins off into more stories. It’s like we are getting ‘spoon fed’ right now so we can digest the real meal, later. Like McCrory told us – this is CDA’s Watergate.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 11, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
Mary and Stebbijo,
Thanks for adding that information.
Jim Brannon, his attorney, and the investigators have thus far been restricted to looking at public information. Once the court enforces its order to allow them to have access sought under discovery, a lot of answers will be clearer and more complete.
Voting is a privilege that many people take for granted. It carries obligations that, as many of the people named in this story have confirmed, are often ignored not only by electors but also by supposedly competent and diligent election administrators and other public officials. Electors who ignorantly or lazily fail to meet their obligations deserve to have their votes counted. Electors who intentionally violate the laws deserve to be prosecuted. Public officials who are derelict in their obligations must be removed from office. Anything less cheapens the value of the privilege to vote.
Comment by Bill — April 11, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
I knew that in 2005, Mike Kennedy had to rent a room to establish residency in Coeur d’Alene to run for City Council and thought that was very strange. How could someone be elected to represent our city citizens when they did not even reside within the city limits. Now we see the same practice with voting in same ole council members.
Well said…….”A fraudulent vote is a vote denied to an honest voter”
Comment by LTR — April 11, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
Bill,
Would you explain how you see voting as a “privilege” and/or/nor a ‘right’?
Comment by Stebbijo — April 12, 2010 @ 7:58 am
Stebbijo, I’m not Bill, but (as I see it) the ” privilege” comes from living in a democracy as opposed to a dictatorship. And that democracy was won with blood, tears and an unyielding desire for freedom. This democracy gives us the “right” to vote and that is a privilege beyond price. That said, it does not follow that one can vote illegally. One does not have the “right” to vote anywhere they choose. We are a country of laws and those laws must be respected. One questionable ballot(s) came from a couple who have a business in CDA, but live in Hayden. Apparently they felt that gave them the right to vote in CDA. A not uncommon hubris in this area. The attitude that thinks the rules are for “others”.
Comment by rochereau — April 12, 2010 @ 8:43 am
Stebbijo,
I don’t consider the terms to be exclusive. I consider voting to be both a right guaranteed by our federal and state Constitutions and a privilege. The right is conferred, the privilege is accepted. We have a duty of citizenship to exercise both lawfully.
Comment by Bill — April 12, 2010 @ 8:43 am
Thanks Bill.
Maybe you can clear this analogy up. According to what I have read about how the Secretary of State explains our legal right to vote out of the area, would this scenerio hold true?
From CDA Press article:
If I lived (had an address) in both Coeur d’Alene, Idaho and Spokane, Washington – then I can vote in both city elections? According to Idaho, if I keep my local CDA address but move to Spokane, Washington, I can still vote in the CDA city elections. Right? Then if I move from Spokane, Washington to Canada but keep a Spokane address, I can vote in both CDA and Spokane city elections from Canada, right? Then, if I move from Canada to Mexico, I can still vote in Coeur d’Alene and Spokane because I still have an address there. I might have relatives in Post Falls with a PO box there that I lived with for 30 days, so I could also vote in their elections as well. I just can’t register to vote in Canada or Mexico. Right?
Comment by Stebbijo — April 12, 2010 @ 9:08 am
rochereau,
Thanks for your take on the semantics of voting. I dunno, I think the Idaho Secretary of State and Dan English think we have the right to vote anywhere we want to out of the city of CDA. That really does need to get cleared up. I could have a new purpose in my life as a professional voter. 😉
Comment by Stebbijo — April 12, 2010 @ 9:12 am
Stebbijo, I’m still chuckling at your marvelously convoluted voting plan. On the serious side, I also considered the SofS explanation very murky. Perhaps it was meant to be.
Love the “logo” for this subject. Perhaps, in parenthesis, it should state that it pays to have friends (addresses) in high places. Attn: Judge Simpson!
Comment by rochereau — April 12, 2010 @ 9:30 am
Stebbijo,
The Secretary of State’s Office provided an opinion, not an absolute statement of law. To evaluate that opinion against a specific fact situation, we would need to see the questions on which the opinion was predicated. In other words, if I ask questions framed to get a specific answer and no other, I should not be surprised if I get the answer I seek.
The questions you raised regarding residency are good ones. As it turns out, the law (Idaho Code Title 34) requires the City Clerk (for City electors) and the County Clerk (for other electors) to make those determinations. There are criteria that the Secretary of State has suggested can be used to help determine residency for voting purposes. The general guidelines can be found here.
There are some more specific factors identified here. Note that while the heading of the last link reads “Students and Voting Residency,” further in the body of the page it says, “Some of the factors which may be relevant in determining whether domicile has been established for voting purposes by astudent as well as any other applicant , are as follows:…” Attorney Scott Reed very selectively picked two factors out of the eleven in the link, and even those eleven are not exhaustive.
If the City and County Clerks aren’t identifying and individually determining voting residency for each applicant, particularly those whose applications clearly indicate questionable residency for voting purposes, then those officials are not doing their jobs as prescribed by law.
Comment by Bill — April 12, 2010 @ 9:51 am
Bill,
Thanks again for you explanation.
So, bringing this forward – that is why you and your wife decided to intervene in this lawsuit, so that those issues could be addressed since the Judge dismissed the other defendants (city and county)? Can you comment on this?
Can other citizens from the area join your motion to intervene?
Comment by Stebbijo — April 12, 2010 @ 10:59 am
Stebbijo,
We decided to ask the Court’s permission to join as intervenors, because the evidence shows that our votes in the City election were nullified by illegal votes.
Yes, other citizens can if they choose. If they’re interested, they should contact Starr Kelso at the Kelso Law Office in Coeur d’Alene. He can explain exactly what the process involves and what obligations it imposes. This election contest is not a campaign activity; it is a lawsuit, so it must be taken very seriously.
Comment by Bill — April 12, 2010 @ 11:48 am