[
The graphic accompanying Mary Souza’s Newsletter post titled The City Council is a “Rubber Stamp” suggests the City automatically OK’s everything it sees. Almost, but not quite.
Some material the public should know about will quickly receive a completely different stamp. The City used that stamp (shown left) to limit information about the November 3, 2009, city election contest lawsuit filed by Jim Brannon.
Read on.
[
At the May 4, 2010, Coeur d’Alene City Council meeting, Councilman Woody McEvers asked City Attorney Mike Gridley to explain the election contest lawsuit. McEvers anguished he had been getting questions from constituents, and he just couldn’t answer their questions. Could Gridley help him?
After about 30 minutes of choreographed “Q & A” between Council members and Gridley, it was quite clear that McEvers was not the only uninformed council member. Each council member had commented or asked loaded questions intended to elicit answers falsely portraying Councilman Mike Kennedy as an innocent victim of some unwarranted legal action. But if anything, the colloquy emphasized the council members’ ignorance of or indifference to their own responsibility for the City’s election! Clearly, McEvers was not the only council member lacking a clear and foundational understanding of the lawsuit and the reasons for it.
The election and canvass were over six months ago. Wouldn’t you think that on a matter as important as the integrity of the City’s own election, the Coeur d’Alene Mayor and City Council members would have been demanding detailed and verified information from the day one? If you were a Council member, wouldn’t you have done that? I would have. Any honest, conscientious City Council member would have. The City had contracted with Kootenai County Clerk Dan English to administer the City’s election. The City had spent public money but received a flawed deliverable. The City should have been joining Jim Brannon in his lawsuit contesting the election and demanding the County do it right. Instead, the City is supporting the contractor who failed to deliver on the contract.
On May 13, 2010, attorney Starr Kelso sent a letter to Mayor Sandi Bloem asking for an equal amount of time in a Council meeting to present factual information about Jim Brannon’s election contest lawsuit to the Mayor, the Council, and most importantly to the public. Like most honest residents of Coeur d’Alene, Kelso expected the Mayor and Council would want the public aware and informed with accurate, complete information. He was wrong.
City attorney Mike Gridley responded to Kelso’s letter. Kelso could speak for five minutes during public comments. Anything more, just give it to Gridley, and he would see to it the Council got it. Sure he would. Hide and deny.
On May 13, 2010, the publisher of Your Local Capitalist newspaper invited me to write this article about the Coeur d’Alene election contest lawsuit for the paper’s May 21st Election Edition. It was based on court documents, public records already online, and on dozens of hours of personal investigation and examination of copies of absentee ballot records and poll books obtained immediately after the election.
I encourage readers to watch the reruns of the May 4 Council meeting on CDA TV 19. Compare what the council members and City Attorney Gridley said with what I wrote in the newspaper article. Once you have heard or read both sides, I believe you will agree the election contest lawsuit is not only warranted but absolutely essential if Kootenai County residents are to ever again have trust and confidence in any elections administered by the Kootenai County Clerk.
Gee, the City Council orchestrating theater? When ever does that happen?
I remember this one long “debate” they had and, when it was finally done, Deanna read the resulting motion from her computer screen. Then there was another time that Edinger asked a complete non-sequitur question and the Mayor lightly said, “Not now, Ron.” So much for spontaneity.
My guess is that Gridley only tells them what they don’t want to hear in Executive Session.
Comment by Dan — May 21, 2010 @ 7:15 am
I understand that copies of Your Local Capitalist are available at Davis Donuts and the Dairy Queen.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 21, 2010 @ 9:33 am
Susie,
Thanks. That makes sense. I think they focus on places where people can sit and have coffee and talk about what they’re reading.
Comment by Bill — May 21, 2010 @ 10:00 am
I saw portions of that meeting. It was very sad how they all tried to smooze the public. Woody may be trying to get out of this mess with his reputation still in tact by asking the hard questions so he can hide behind all of their pathetic answers. After all, if you can’t trust government who can you trust?
That segment actually reminded me of some folks at a bar crying in their beer – trying to make each other feel better. Where is that guy who can draw those cartoons? 🙂
Comment by Stebbijo — May 21, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
Bill,
Would you explain this one a little more?
(10)“Signatures” from other documents cut-and-pasted into voter registration cards.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 21, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Stebbijo,
4. McEvers wasn’t asking hard questions. He was showing that he didn’t care enough about the importance of the election contest issues to have asked any questions before now. It wasn’t until his constituents (if you believe him to be truthful) asked him questions that he finally figured out maybe he ought to pay attention.
5. We obtained photocopies of some voter registration cards from the County. On more than one of them where there should have been an authentic signature there were images of signatures that had clearly been photocopied from other documents and then affixed to the signature block on the voter registration card.
Comment by Bill — May 21, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
Bill, I get it about your perception of Woody asking the “hard questions.” I guess my analogy is McEvers is playing the ignorant public spokesman for the ignorant public so he finally confronts the council – knowing that things don’t look so good.I believe he was too late in paying attention but now he is trying to catch his footing before he completely falls off the balance beam. I agree with Dan that it was orchestrated and the best actor is Woody.
Wow, on the photocopies! That sounds very criminal.
Great article Bill. I checked out the Your Local Capitalist newspaper. It looks nice and I also appreciate the article written by Phil Hart(R)-Athol, that spells out the difference of opinion regarding the controversy over immmigration laws between he and Jorgenson.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 21, 2010 @ 5:13 pm
(1) Malconduct by election officials, fraud, or corruption.
Okay, I have another question. Who is really responsible if the election officials signed off?
Comment by Stebbijo — May 21, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
I have one more and then I am over and out.
If there is proof that votes have been ‘doctored’ then I am very concerned that someone might be fabricating my vote.
I think the word is ‘TREASON.’
If someone gets off with this with a misdemeanor or less (just a little malconduct), why should I vote again?
Comment by Stebbijo — May 21, 2010 @ 6:22 pm
Didn’t Mike Kennedy ask for a recount?
Comment by concerned citizen — May 21, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
From your “article about the Coeur d’Alene election contest lawsuit”
“What does an election contest do that a recount does not?
An election contest examines the legality of the voters and the votes.
A recount simply recounts all the
ballots. A recount does not exclude illegally cast ballots.”
Could it be he knew what an election contest would reveal so he quickly asked for a recount?
Again, why on Earth would he have asked for a recount? Afterall, wasn’t he declared the winner?
Comment by concerned citizen — May 21, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
Stebbijo,
8. The Mayor and the City Council contracted with Kootenai County, specifically the Kootenai County Clerk, to administer the city’s election. The Kootenai County Clerk, Dan English, adminstered the election as if the only applicable statutes were until Idaho Code, Title 34. But municipal elections, until January 1, 2011, are conducted under Title 50. As I pointed out in my post, Judge Hosack asked both parties the same question you asked. Starr Kelso correctly answered that the Coeur d’Alene Mayor and City Council were responsible for the election. The city’s hired attorney, Mike Haman, said that the Coeur d’Alene Mayor and City Council just rubber-stamped the canvass put in front of them. It seems to me (my opinion) that the Mayor and City Council are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the City’s election. The County was a contractor. If Dan English and the County did not fulfill their duties under the contract and deliver a “clean” election, the City ought to be raising holy hell with the County. But the City isn’t. The City got the result it really wanted — all incumbents appeared to win.
9. If you registered and voted legally, your legal vote was nullified by an illegal vote. That does not mean that the person casting that illegal vote committed a criminal act. But it does mean that Dan English’s dereliction of duty, with the explicit approval by the Coeur d’Alene Mayor and City Council (they signed an unresolved canvass), nullified your vote. In most places, that would be enough to get them recalled. But this is Idaho, where very few citizens care about honest elections.
Comment by Bill — May 21, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
Bill,
You mentioned, “That does not mean that the person casting that illegal vote committed a criminal act.”
Can you explain that?
Comment by Stebbijo — May 21, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
citizen,
10. We were told Kennedy asked about a recount.
11. I can’t begin to understand what, if anything, goes on inside Kennedy’s mind. But your last question makes an excellent point. Why would the apparent winner ask (if he really did) for a recount? If Kennedy was truly interested in ensuring the election outcome was honest, the election contest wouldn’t even have been necessary. Kennedy could have acknowledged election administration irregularities by the contractor (Kootenai County) and joined Brannon in demanding a new election. The contract between the City and County provides insurance payment for an election contest. Instead, Kennedy is fighting against a new election. Not the behavior expected from someone supposedly committed to an honest election.
Comment by Bill — May 21, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
Stebbijo,
13. Yes. A person following inaccurate or deceptive instructions from Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, County Clerk Dan English and the County Elections Office and relying in good faith on those instructions voted unlawfully but certainly not criminally. I won’t go into any further detail other than to say English and Ysursa betrayed the trust of at least one voter by providing wrong instructions. You don’t even consider charging an honest voter who asked an honest question but was given a deceptive answer by two public officials and then relied on that answer to vote.
Comment by Bill — May 21, 2010 @ 8:08 pm
Bill,
Your explanation makes sense. Are there any leads as to who fabricated the voter registration cards?
I mean really – this is just one more kink in the process that I am sure the city council did not want us to know about. Unreal.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 22, 2010 @ 6:19 am
I was speaking with a person working the elections this year and wonder if there is another concern. Since we have open elections and a person does not need to declare a party they will be handed two ballots (one Republican and one Democrat) to take into the voting booth. After voting they put the used ballot in the “sleeve” and side it into the ballot box. They put the unused ballot in the unused box. The election worker must watch the process. The concern is that a person will vote on both ballots and slide both into the voting box. Even if it is noticed there is nothing to be done about it as the box is sealed.
In the past I remember there being one ballot with Republican on one side and Democrat on the other. Does anyone think there is a reason for concern?
Comment by citizen — May 22, 2010 @ 7:51 am
citizen,
Anytime an election administration vulnerability that can be exploited is identified, there is reason for concern. It was Ysursa’s and English’s jobs to identify and correct election administration vulnerabilities before they could be exploited.
Comment by Bill — May 22, 2010 @ 9:13 am
To catch a thief you need to think like the thief. Why can’t Ysura and English have a little imagination as to what could go wrong and set up safe guards. Most election workers are elderly and expecting them to to catch the dropping of ballots into the wrong boxes before it happens is of concern.
I have had a considerable number of people express outrage that they must choose a ballot and cannot vote in both Republican and Democrat primaries! Think how easy it would be for them to get their way.
Let’s just hope the the number of ballots in the box will tally with the number of voters. These sealed boxes are opened at the election office and the poll workers will not be aware of mistakes. I wonder if the details of the tallys will be open for the public to see.
Comment by citizen — May 22, 2010 @ 11:15 am
citizen,
If Ysursa and English started doing their jobs the way the public erroneously believed they were, the contrast would be obvious, and both of them would be recalled (as they should be anyway). In other words, both Ysursa and English like the system broken. It makes their lives much easier.
You wondered if the audits would be open for the public to see. Not if Dan English has his way. And so far, with the help of Barry McHugh and John “Witch Hunt” Cafferty, he’s had his way for the November 3, 2009, City election.
Comment by Bill — May 22, 2010 @ 11:23 am
SICK, SICK, and SICKER
Comment by citizen — May 22, 2010 @ 11:39 am
citzen,
I have decided to vote in the primary this year. Thanks for the info. I wondered about the process.
Couldn’t a voter negate one of the unused ballots by filling in all of the blanks (with ink) or crossing it out? I mean really, I am not putting an UNUSED one in any box.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 22, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
Or just write VOID on it in INK.
Comment by Stebbijo — May 22, 2010 @ 6:21 pm
All I know is that you are responsible for getting your used ballot in the voting box and the unused ballot in another box. The used ballot goes into a “sleeve” so that no one can tell which ballot you chose. We just hope that two ballots don’t get slipped into the sleeve and then into the voting box. I believe they call this “voter responsibility”. I just want to know where Ysura’s responsibility starts.
Comment by citizen — May 22, 2010 @ 7:03 pm
Stebbijo,
Please let us know how voiding the second ballot works out. You’ve had a really good idea — make sure an unused ballot can’t be used. Actually, some friends who are long-time poll workers suggested to English that every unused ballot be defaced before it ever left the polling place just to prevent its “accidentally” being voted and stamped with the authenticating stamp. Their suggestion was very simple: Clamp the unused ballots together, then use a cordless drill to drill a few holes through the stack of them. They could still be counted for audit purposes, but no ballot with the defacing holes would be counted since the holes wouldn’t have been drilled until after the polls closed. It probably wouldn’t even run through the machine. Seems like a pretty inexpensive and darned smart idea to me. I was told the idea was suggested some time ago but has not been implemented. Now there’s a surprise!
Comment by Bill — May 22, 2010 @ 7:43 pm
citizen,
I am told that the Coeur d’Alene City Election Fiasco has received more attention elsewhere than here. In fact, Ysursa may be called upon by legislators with some suggestions for improving his operations. Let’s hope so.
Comment by Bill — May 22, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
First Ysura has to pay attention to the suggestions by citizens and voters.
Comment by citizen — May 22, 2010 @ 9:57 pm