The Catch of the Day Award goes to newly-registered commenter samasterson for pointing out my error in the post titled He’s At It Again. Commenter samasterson correctly and authoritatively cited Idaho Code 34-614, the section which states the qualifications for a candidate to file for election as a state representative or senator. Notably, that section does not require a candidate for the Idaho Senate to be a registered voter or a qualified elector.
Why do you suppose the Idaho legislature did not include an explicit requirement that candidates for state representative or senator must be a registered voter or qualified elector?
Because it is not a mandatory government requirement for any of us to vote.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 19, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
Stebbijo,
Good answer! I don’t know if that was the legislators’ reasoning, but it sure sounds plausible. Of course, one could register without voting. Thank you!
That raises yet another interesting point (at least I think so). In Idaho, only an “elector” can file an election contest. Under Idaho Code 34-104, a qualified elector must be a registered voter. So it sounds as if a person could be qualified to be a candidate for representative or senator but not be qualified to file an election contest. Curious.
Comment by Bill — April 19, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Sounds like a mess to me. I think we need another Idaho Supreme Court Committee! Are you sure this Vick guy was born in the United States? 😉
Comment by Stebbijo — April 19, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
Stebbijo,
Here’s an oddity. Idaho Code 34-623 requires the county prosecutor to be a qualified elector in the county. As nearly as I can tell with a quick reading, that may be the only county position that requires a candidate to also be a qualified elector. I wonder why the legislature made the distinction?
Comment by Bill — April 19, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
Gad, Bill – you ask some really tough questions.
I dunno, but most likely in 1984 there was another “mess” and the legislature had to fix it by making another law to make it right and the folks who drafted this law had some forsight and figured the prosecuter should be a voter, over 21 years of age, U.S. citizen and an attorney? Was someone elected as a prosecuting attorney who was not an attorney?
This is a good one, I also wonder what events prompted thatlaw. This might be a good question for the Legislative Review Teams – an Idaho Supreme Court Committee.
Judge Simpson is on that committee and so is Judge Verby.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 19, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
Well, I’m sorry to say that ‘smasterson’ is wrong, which makes Bill right, but for the wrong reasons. Idaho’s Constitution requires members of the legislature to be “an elector of this state”; Article 111, Section 6. Can’t be an elector unless you’re registered to vote, I reckon.
Also, on the question about the prosecutor, the Idaho Constitution also requires the County Prosecutor to be, “an elector of the county…”; Article V, Section 18.
Comment by Gary Ingram — April 19, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
Gary, I am glad you are setting the record straight.
Why don’t we have an Idaho Supreme Court Constitutional Review Team? Maybe Judge Mitchell could be the chair to that one.
Comment by Stebbijo — April 19, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
Not so fast, Gary. The section of the Constitution you cite states that one must be an elector registered as provided by law at “the time of the election”. Idaho code 34-408A allows for registration on the day of the election, which has not occurred yet. The way I read this, If Vick’s current registration is invalid, he could still register prio to the election and be qualified to be a Senator.
Comment by samasterson — April 20, 2010 @ 5:53 am
I agree that there is confusion regarding perceived conflicts and unconsistencies between the Constitution and the statutes. I would surmise that some of that is due to the requirements of the fedral motor voter law in the 90s. Surely, this should be addressed. Having said that, it really chaps me when an incumbent (or any one else for that matter) attempts to use technical deficiencies in the law to deprive an opponent of his or her participation in the democratic process, particularly when the opponent in the current situation did everything he was required to do under Idaho law.
Comment by samasterson — April 20, 2010 @ 6:05 am
Sorry for the misspellings. Texting on a phone is a tough skill for a 48 year old.
Comment by samasterson — April 20, 2010 @ 6:23 am
Gary and smasterson,
Thank you both for your scholarly additions to this discussion.
Here is the online version of the Idaho Constitution, Article 3, Section 6:
smasterson, does not the last clause, “…nor anyone who has not been…”, preclude day-of-election registrants from qualifying? I agree completely that administrative dereliction and laziness in the County Clerks’ offices (apparently both in Lewis & Clark County, Montana, and Kootenai County, Idaho) should not exclude an otherwise legally qualified potential candidate who had done everything in his power to comply with the law and who had relied in good faith on the ruling of someone empowered to make the ruling. However, going back to the original newspaper story, wasn’t Vick’s Idaho voter registration canceled by law when he registered to vote in Montana? That the two states’ administrative procedures for cancellation were messed up doesn’t change that, does it?
Just as Vick should not be penalized because of administrative incompetence or laziness from election administrators, neither should Jorgenson be denied his right to object to what appears to be an unqualified candidate being allowed to file to run against him. I think both Vick and Jorgenson have a very reasonable quarrel with Kootenai County Clerk Dan English and his County Elections Office staff. This is not the only indication that English has made an unlawful interpretation of election law out of convenience. It’s unfortunate that Vick or Jorgenson or both may have to challenge English’s actions in court. It’s another example of private citizens being forced to undertake an expensive legal action to overcome official dereliction, incompetence, or misfeasance. I certainly would not rely at all on any interpretations coming out of Secretary of State Ben Ysursa’s office.
Comment by Bill — April 20, 2010 @ 6:40 am
If Vick is disqualified, it would be for bureaucratic incompetence, not from lack of vick’s compliance with the law. If Jorgensen were an honorable man, he would acknowledge this, withdraw his complaint, and pursue remedies for the real problem. Instead, he is taking advantage of a clerk’s error to avoid being held accountable to voters and to deprive a citizen of his right to participate in the electoral process. This is a character problem, not a legal one.
Comment by samasterson — April 20, 2010 @ 7:20 am
smasterson,
Unquestionably, there was bureaucratic incompetence, laziness, and misfeasance involved. I agree that Vick tried to the best of his ability to comply with the law, and his effort was thwarted by the Kootenai County Clerk and his Election Office staff. At the same time, Idaho Code 34-107(5) reads:
To me that says that when Vick moved to Montana intending to make it his permanent home, he lost his residence in Idaho. That loss occurred regardless of the administrative failures to document it.
The Idaho Secretary of State’s IdahoVotes website has specific guidance on this webpage for determining residency for voting purposes. As noted in the text, the guidance applies not only to students. The first relevant factor in determining domicile is “(1) Has the applicant registered to vote elsewhere?”
Vick’s properly registering to vote in Montana and his stated intention to make Montana his permanent residence effectively and statutorily ended his previous voting residence in Idaho. He needed to register when he moved back to Idaho. He tried to do that and was unlawfully prevented from doing that by Kootenai County Clerk Dan English’s County Elections Office staff. I don’t agree with your assertion that for Jorgenson to insist that the law be enforced is somehow dishonorable. I can far more easily apply the word “dishonorable” to the actions and inactions of Kootenai County Clerk Dan English who took an oath and has a duty to uphold the Idaho Constitution.
Comment by Bill — April 20, 2010 @ 7:49 am
Is anybody else now cross eyed?
It takes an incident of this sort to find these ridiculous conflicts. When writing new legislation, doesn’t anyone research previous legislation? This is really nonsense.
samasterson, Sen. Jorgenson is an honorable man, at least I have found him to be so. The law is the law. That being said, I think he should stipulate to Mr. Vicks candidacy. This situation is not of Vicks doing and he should not be penalized for the clerks mistake. He made a very good faith effort to do the correct thing.
It isn’t funny, however I can’t help but compare CDA/KC to the Keystone Cops. Bumble, bumble!
Comment by rochereau — April 20, 2010 @ 8:22 am
This episode isn’t helping promote the image of Jorgenson as an honorable man. A fight is a fight. Didn’t Obama do the same thing to his opponent(s) during his first race for state senate in Illinois?
Comment by Dan — April 20, 2010 @ 8:42 am
rochereau,
Avoiding citizen cross-eyedness is why we elect and appoint public officials. What this incident points out is the damaging consequences that happen to innocent people when public officials don’t do their jobs. That is also the issue in the election contest of the Coeur d’Alene City election of November 3, 2009. If English and his crew and Weathers had performed their duties diligently, the election contest might not have been necessary.
Now we have Steve Vick who will be penalized unfairly if the law is upheld and Mike Jorgenson who will be penalized unfairly if it is not.
Comment by Bill — April 20, 2010 @ 9:21 am
Rochereau, Jorgensen basically called Vick a liar on the radio this morning. Where’s the honor in that?
Comment by Steve — April 20, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Steve, I didn’t hear that. And that is not something I personally would do unless the statement was a proven slam dunk. I can’t accurately comment on what Jorgenson said because I didn’t hear the context. That being said, politics is a dirty game (IMO) and calling an opponent a “liar” is quite common. Frankly, it has been my experience that there is no honor in politics or campaigning. My very limited knowledge of Jorgenson has not shown an unpleasant side. Bear in mind my usage of the word “limited”. I wonder why Jorgenson is so concerned by Vick.
Comment by rochereau — April 20, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
This seat has a history of nasty politics. Anyone remember the 2002 battle between Boatright and Bailey?
Comment by Dan — April 20, 2010 @ 1:32 pm