Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Daniel Eismann informed attorneys this afternoon that Judge Charles Hosack has been appointed to hear Jim Brannon’s election contest lawsuit. The District’s administrative judge could ask the Supreme Court to make such an appointment after all other sitting First District Court judges had disqualified themselves or been disqualified. Judge John Mitchell is the administrative judge for the First District Court.
Huh? Have I been asleep at the wheel? I thought that Judge Hosack retired from the bench… somebody help me out…
Comment by grizz — April 30, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
Judge Hosack did retire, however there are provisions for using retired judges in certain circumstances. Others on here are probably better informed than I about the process.
Comment by Bill — April 30, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
So the first time around, they probably stuck Simpson with the case because he was the FNG. No one else wanted it.
Comment by Dan — April 30, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
Dan,
You are almost certainly correct. Justice takes a distant second place to political expedience in Kootenai County. Judges who depend on the support of socially, politically, and financially influential people for re-election or even elevation don’t want to touch a case like this.
Comment by Bill — April 30, 2010 @ 7:17 pm
Given the jamb-up of court calendars nationwide, it is a very common practice for retired judges to return to the bench for special cases. The most common use of a retired judge is arbitration in an effort to settle a case out of court. In this case, a retired, or retiring judge, is the perfect answer. At this point in his career, we can hoope that Judge Hosacks only allegience is to the law.
Comment by rochereau — May 1, 2010 @ 9:03 am
rochereau,
I suspect that someone, maybe Chief Justice Eismann, called Judge Hosack to discuss his coming out of retirement and hearing the election contest. I hope that the conversation included an assurance to Judge Hosack that if he hears the case diligently, that if he rules based on the law and the evidence and not based on the political pressures and influences that pervade in Corrupt d’Alene and Kootenai County, that the Supremes won’t make him look bad when and if the case gets to their Court. The Supremes may already know more about this election contest than most of the residents of Kootenai County.
Kootenai County Clerk Dan English, with ignorant acquiescence from Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, has so badly fouled up the election administration process in Kootenai County that it is going to take action from the Idaho legislature to put out the fire and cap the ruptured well. It may even take interaction with Idaho’s US Representatives and Senators to reconcile and clarify Idaho election administration with federal law such as the Help America Vote Act.
Comment by Bill — May 1, 2010 @ 11:29 am
Hopefully this is an unbiased judge who will not be an ally of either side.
I don’t know much about Judge Hosak.
Here’s hoping for an untainted, fair resolution of this case.
(hey, it could happen – even in Kootenai County…well maybe, right? right?… 🙂
Comment by CDAShenanigans — May 1, 2010 @ 11:31 am
CDAShenanigans,
I agree completely. Both sides should pray that Judge Hosack is scholarly and diligent and that he will rule based on a literal reading of the law and fair interpretation of the evidence. The best trial outcome, or maybe even a negotiated settlement, would be a decision that both sides can agree was fair, consistent with the law, and as error free as humanly possible.
Comment by Bill — May 1, 2010 @ 11:50 am
The long delay in appointing a judge to replace Judge Simpson leads me to wonder if judges are permitted to cherry pick the cases they hear.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 2, 2010 @ 8:14 am
Susie,
Yes. Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 40(d)(4) says
This could also be called the “Thank God I don’t have to explain that my re-election as a District Court judge would be jeopardized if I heard this case” rule.
Comment by Bill — May 2, 2010 @ 8:25 am
Getting a good judge in Idaho appears to be a problem so the Idaho Supreme Court created the Idaho Judicial Recruitment Committee around 2008.
The S-R the other day published an article about the upcoming judicial debate between Justice Jones and Judge Bradbury. I caught this interesting paragraph.
Well, maybe Bradbury would like to see a formal selection process where the public was part of it instead of the pick of the litter box method? Maybe Bradbury should ask to sit on the Media/Courts Committee and/or Rule 32 so he could sit with Betsy Russell, reporter for the S-R!
The Administrative Conference Committee adopts their own protocol – no public invited.
But, just so you know who the guys are that are recruiting for us – see if you know any. The Idaho Supreme Court does not publish bios – you just have to do your own research. Maybe someday they will form the ‘Idaho Judicial Debate Committee!’
Judicial Recruitment Committee
Co-Chair: Chief Judge Karen Lansing
Co-Chair: Judge Sergio Gutierez
Hon. Michael Oths
Hon. R. Barry Wood
Patricia Tobias
Tom Limbaugh
Burt Butler
Bob Hamlin
Sherry Krulitz
Deborah Ferguson
Wyatt Benton Johnson
Linda Pall, Ph.D.
Ron Coulter
Gus Cahill
Bradford S. Eidam
Jeffrey Thomson
Peggy Dougherty
Jenny C. Grunke
J. Scott Andrew
Andrea Patterson, Reporter
Comment by Stebbijo — May 2, 2010 @ 12:40 pm
Also, I am gathering records but I do have the latest Administrative Conference Committee Minutes from April 15 – 16th and from those minutes they discussed the Judicial Recruitment Committee. Here is what they are doing – along with changing several court rules and processes.
(copy and paste)
—————–
F. Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Recruitment Committee
Judges Gutierrez and Lansing, along with Andrea Patterson, were invited to the conference to present the report and recommendations of the Judicial Recruitment Committee, asking the Administrative Conference for support of the recommendations to be forwarded to the Supreme Court.
Judge Gutierrez reported that the work of the committee has widespread interest in the legal community, as evidenced by the composition and participation of the committee members. The survey generated 900 responses from Bar members, including many written comments.
Judge Lansing added that the committee welcomes feedback from the conference on the report and recommendations, especially from those who have recently been through the recruitment process. It was noted that many problems or obstacles to applying for judicial positions are not necessarily things the judiciary has control over. The committee plans to present the final report and recommendations at the State Bar’s Annual meeting later this summer. She commended Andrea Patterson and others who worked so hard to analyze the data and compile the report.
Andrea Patterson commented that the statewide representation on the committee brought a variety of perspectives to the committee’s deliberations. She explained that because the pool of candidates for judicial positions is a narrowly defined entity, it was decided to survey members of the State Bar. The survey had a high rate of return, with 927 responses. The committee’s report includes an executive summary, as well as statistical information. The key findings of the survey were refined to eight goals:
Goal 1: Educate members of the bar regarding judicial service so they understand what judicial service entails and can better assess their interest in judicial service.
Goal 2: Educate members of the bar regarding judicial selection procedures and encourage refinement of those procedures to increase confidence and participation in judicial selection procedures.
Goal 3: Prioritize strategies to address the concerns raised by women, more experienced practitioners, and other under-represented groups to increase confidence in judicial selection procedures and the number of judicial applications from these groups.
Goal 4: Broadly and persistently market serving in the judiciary to potential judges to create and build interest in judicial service.
Goal 5: Improve Judicial Compensation.
Goal 6: Enhance recruitment and selection procedures.
Goal 7: Develop outreach strategies, including distribution of survey report and recommendations and presentation of the materials, to relevant organizations and offices.
Goal 8: Recommend further study of other issues for potential legislative changes.
Patti Tobias thanked Judges Lansing and Gutierrez, and Andrea Patterson and the committee members for their important and significant work. Some suggestions or questions from the conference addressed elections, geographic considerations, the need for statistics to support the statement on page 5, a note about the 1971 Bar committee which started judicial system reform, the need for civic education and public outreach to schools, other opportunities to acquaint the bar with judicial service, and information about the West Virginia model that uses public financing to address funding for contested elections.
IT WAS MOVED BY BURT BUTLER AND SECONDED BY JUDGE WETHERELL TO SUPPORT THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED AND AMENDED, INCLUDING CHANGES DISCUSSED; FURTHER THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE RECOMMENDS THAT THE COURT ASK THE STATE BAR TO UNDERTAKE FURTHER STUDY REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN GOAL 8. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Action Item
The Judicial Recruitment Committee will amend its report as discussed and forward it to the Supreme Court, with the recommendations of the Administrative Conference attached.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 2, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
Stebbijo,
I was interested in the all-caps sentence relating to Goal 8.
In his letter in Sunday’s Coeur d’Alene Press, Justice Jim Jones commented that
There seems to be some inconsistency between the minutes and Justice Jones’ campaign letter.
Comment by Bill — May 2, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
No Judicial activism going on – Nope – none of that stuff! However, the Administrative Conference appears to recognize some sort of activism! BTW, the Legislative Review Team is composed of all judges. They might as well give Patti Tobias a gavel.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 2, 2010 @ 11:08 pm
The Supremes won’t pressure the legislators, of course not, they’ll just huddle with their cronies in the bar and -whala- low and behold the bar association will have lengthy discussions with the legislators in Boise.
Comment by Ancientemplar — May 3, 2010 @ 8:53 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1271457/General-Election-2010-Postal-vote-fraud-amid-fears-bogus-voters-swing-election.html
Comment by Pariah — May 3, 2010 @ 9:03 pm
Pariah,
Election officials who utter the statement, “That couldn’t possibly happen here,” are likely to be forced to admit under oath in the face of overwhelming evidence that it has happened here.
Comment by Bill — May 4, 2010 @ 6:24 am