[
[
Today’s hearing in the election contest of the November 3, 2009, Coeur d’Alene city election will be at 3 p.m. in Courtroom 9, Kootenai County Justice Building, 324 W. Garden Avenue, Coeur d’Alene. Be sure to allow ample time to find parking and be screened through security.
Well?
Comment by Dan — May 14, 2010 @ 8:53 pm
From the paper this morning, it aparently went as well as could be expected. While I hope this is a harbinger of things to come with Judge Hosack presiding, this town makes one quite paranoid. Often when I look in the mirror, I see Oliver Stone looking back! Will the Judge truly be impartial and let this go to trial, or…..And if it goes to trial, will the ole’ boys mentality not enter into the procedings? I find it interesting that Mike wasn’t present in court. He was whinning again in Fridays paper.
Comment by rochereau — May 15, 2010 @ 9:03 am
rochereau,
The hearing went very well. Judge Hosack had the experience and judicial temperament to maintain control over his courtroom. He seems to have read and understood all parties’ briefs and pleadings. He was prepared. It was a little difficult to follow exactly what was happening because of the layers of motions he was ruling on. I think Mary will be putting out a newsletter update and post it here on OpenCdA. Overall, I’d say the City government can’t be too pleased at the outcome. The next step ought to be for English and McHugh to open up access to the election materials to the parties under discovery. It was pretty clear that Judge Hosack wants to get to the heart of the issue without prejudicing either side.
There is certainly a chance this will end up in front of the Idaho Supreme Court. The election laws in the state are really outdated, imprecise, and is some cases conflicting. Blame the present Secretary of State Ysursa and his predecessor Secretaries of State going back to the early 1900’s for that. They are supposed to periodically review the election laws and then advise the legislature what need to be done to keep them timely and current. Apparently laziness and indifference aren’t restricted to Dan English when it comes to election administration.
Comment by Bill — May 15, 2010 @ 9:25 am
Thanks Bill, that is pretty much how I read it. I have said before that a retired judge is the best solution. Hopefully, he owes no favors and doesn’t worry about the…uhhh, movers and shakers who hold this town hostage! It did sound as if the judge will order access to all pertinent materials.
AS for officials doing their job (or not) I think the current situation says it all. One has to wonder if these officials even know what their duties are. Or do they just collect their pay and grin for the camera. Bureaucracy at its worst.
Comment by rochereau — May 15, 2010 @ 9:45 am
These posts are a much better representation of the hearing as opposed to reading that our city council (Goodlander) is now slandering Brannon supporters on another site – who I believe won by a measely 26 votes. She is appearing a bit nervous and defensive as well.
On the flip side, can’t the city/county now appeal and drag this out in an effort to stop the evidence from appearing which is what is holding this whole thing up – anyway? Also, it appears to me that the judicial system might also like to drag this out. If the City and County were not so secretive this would all be settled and maybe convicted. It appears to me that they are trying to cover something up. And, if it keeps going and it takes upward and close to two years to fix this mess then it’s over anyway. So the people get nothing and so does Brannon and we have been essentially been taxed and manipulated without legal representation. So, if this suit is not quickly settled there is something seriously wrong. It doesn’t take weeks to pick judges. Very slow and pokey.
It was written somewhere that Kennedy was riding his bike, maybe he did not show up beause he got a flat tire?
I would not be surprized if English loses the election before this case is settled. That will be a sweet win for many of us. Then Brannon will run as the incumbent after the decision is finally reached down the road. Then we have the Jorgenson/English suit that is going to weave itself into the web.
If it goes to the Supreme Court, the only chance is to hope it happens after this November and you have Judge Bradbury and that might not even help.
What I don’t understand is why hasn’t the Supreme Court delegated a committee to look at elections laws – they do everything else? Watch them, they might do it. Just my cynical POV –
Comment by Stebbijo — May 15, 2010 @ 10:06 am
stebbijo,
Goodlander won by 29 votes, and she should be nervous and defensive.
I suspect the judiciary wants this resolved as quickly and honestly as possible — now. This case has made the First District Court judges look like they are more concerned about their political futures than about justice. The public can be forgiven if it has that perception since that is the perception left in the wake of the judges DQing themselves so they wouldn’t have to handle the election contest.
I agree with you that there needs to be someone paying attention to the election laws. That is the Secretary of State’s job, but Ysursa has been too busy trying to ensure that if it breathes, it gets registered to vote. Ysursa and English were cut from the same egotistical model – them first, influential people second, voters way down the list.
Comment by Bill — May 15, 2010 @ 10:57 am
I wanted to share the below comment so beautifully written by Mr. Badraun.
From the Spokesman Review DFO Blog
sbadraun on May 15 at 5:44 a.m.
“There is no question that all of this is uncomfortable to the voters in Kootenai County. However, the inquiry must be made and the resolution is essential. The right to a fair and free election is the bedrock of our democracy. I applaud those who inquire. I applaud those who defend. I applaud those who support. I applaud those who decide.”
Comment by LTR — May 15, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
LTR,
Thank you. It would be foolhardy to dispute his statement. So, fools will attack him.
Comment by Bill — May 15, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
Bill, I heard that you were going to petition the court to be adding in on the suit. How did that go?
Comment by Dan — May 16, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Dan,
The hearing on Friday went so well, Starr asked the Court to set that motion aside subject to later renewal. The same was true for his motion for permissive appeal. The judge agreed.
To get some idea of how much has gone into this, follow this link and then scroll down the Register of Actions.
Comment by Bill — May 16, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
stebbijo, I believe Dan English is running unopposed. I could be wrong, but that is how I remember the ballot. Hard to lose when you are running without opposition.
Comment by rochereau — May 16, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
rochereau,
Dan English is running unopposed in the Democrat primary, and Cliff Hayes is running unopposed in the Republican primary. They will both be on the November ballot.
Comment by Bill — May 16, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
Ah-ha! I was right and I was wrong. : ) I know I didn’t vote for Dan English, I vote the Republican ballot. But I read both. Boy, you have to love my memory…say I with a groan. And I must admit, I haven’t a clue who Cliff Hayes might be. Hopefully an improvement. Still, English has the advantage of incumbancy.
Comment by rochereau — May 16, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
rochereau
Cliff Hayes is the former, recently-retired police chief of Post Falls.
Comment by Bill — May 16, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
With a stellar reputation for enforcing the law. Suspect very strongly he will follow it, as well.
Comment by Gary Ingram — May 16, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
Cliff Hayes is a self confessed empire builder. What is his resume before PFPD? Compare the costs of PFPD to those of comparable municipalities.
Comment by Pariah — May 16, 2010 @ 8:41 pm