Well, today’s Catch of the Day Award goes to commenter Gary Ingram. Responding to samasterson’s observation that Idaho Code 34-614 does not require candidates for Idaho state representative or senator election to be electors, Gary properly pointed out that the Idaho Constitution , Article 3, Section 6 does.
Shouldn’t Idaho’s Secretary of State and the County Clerks have spotted this apparent conflict between statute and Constitution and brought it to the attention of the legislature for correction?
You know, if the county “expert” the voters elect and the taxpayers pay to be on top of these issues were competent, then this wouldn’t need to be a topic for discussion.
I might add that the state “expert” falls under the same lack-of-competence category, as witnessed by his supreme court slap described in today’s Press.
Comment by Dan — April 20, 2010 @ 8:44 am
Thanks for the Catch-of-the-Day Award. That’s a hell of a lot better than I got on the Columbia River near Vancouver over the weekend hoping to hook a Chinook Spring Salmon. One fish limit, two days fishing, 4 so called fisherman, 2 salmon total. Me, nothing.
Yeah, 34-614 needs to be amended to include all of the Constitutional requirements. Will ask Secretary of State Ben Ysursa to bring forward proper legislation.
Comment by Gary Ingram — April 20, 2010 @ 9:42 am
Hmmmmm. So it seems that the SOS ruled that Vick is qualified, but Jorgensen said this morning that he is filing a lawsuit. Who would be the defendant in such a lawsuit under Idaho law?
Comment by samasterson — April 20, 2010 @ 9:55 am
Jeez. According to precedence, would Vick be the defendant, similar to the way Kennedy is the defendant in the City election lawsuit? That’s scary.
Comment by Dan — April 20, 2010 @ 10:00 am
My guess is that Jorgensen’s retention of a Boise attorney signals that the SOS would be the defendant and the court would be in Boise.
Comment by samasterson — April 20, 2010 @ 10:12 am
At least someone is going to question our bumbling Secretary of State. I have asked him several questions and have been treated to the larges bunch of bovine gobbly gook a weasle politician could muster. I wouldn’t pay him to walk my dog.
Comment by WannaBe JD — April 20, 2010 @ 10:30 am
Considering that Vick is really the injured party in this mess, shouldn’t he be the one who sues?
Comment by rochereau — April 20, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Query: does Vick have a federal voter’s rights action against the County Clerk’s office? Being from Texas, I can assure everyone that we would NOT want the Justice Department crawling around the County offices.
Comment by Steve — April 20, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
Steve,
I don’t know. He would need a lawyer to tell him that.
Why would we not want the feds crawling around county offices?
Comment by Bill — April 20, 2010 @ 3:47 pm