This comment came in last evening, added to a different post, and I thought is was well worth its own presence here. Cory has offered some thought provoking ideas on the Election Challenge. Do you agree?:
Please indulge me with a little fantasy.
Imagine Coeur d’Alene has a very powerful, “hooked-up” mayor who is thought to be supported by powerful business interests. Lets call him Mayor Daly. Lets imagine that a grass-roots candidate challenges him and has support of many “little people.” We will call her Jane Doe. Lets imagine that Jane’s supporters work their hearts out, dig deep in their pockets to support her, and by sheer hard work and determination she wins.
Now lets imagine Mayor Daly decides to contest the election. He says he is interested in looking at the election process. He doesn’t really trust the “little people” and thinks that there may be some “illegal votes.” He has strong support from somewhere, and deep, deep pockets. He can and does bury Jane in legal motions and she just can’t handle the expense. Her supporters have given it their all, and there just isn’t any more to give. She has to fold, walking away from her seat. Wa-Lah, Mayor Daly back in power.
I am sure we all agree that Mayor Daly had the right to contest the election and actually sue Jane. But wouldn’t you want to know who was backing Mayor Daly in his election contest? Wouldn’t that be significant information? Would you be suspicious that this could present an opportunity for some hidden interest to “buy” the mayor, someone who couldn’t openly support him in the initial campaign?
I follow your blog somewhat and the comments made by some of you on different forums, and a few things are clear: You present yourselves as being interested in openness, fairness, equality, and the opposition opinions of the “little people.” I am amazed at your inconsistency on this issue. We need laws applied equally, to the weak and the powerful. What is the problem with accepting the “candidate” status for Brannon and just expecting he will follow the campaign finance laws as they exist?
I, too am a voter, resident of the county, woman of independent thought, and, yes, DOTC’s wife.
Comment by Cory English — August 2, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
Here’s what Bill said this morning:
Cory,
Your premise that Jim Brannon is still a candidate for some office is not supported by Idaho law. You profess to want the laws applied equally to the weak and powerful, and that is exactly what the election contest is about — ensuring that Idaho’s laws are applied equally as written. The November 3, 2009, City election ended on November 9, 2009, when the Coeur d’Alene Mayor and City Council rubber-stamped the election canvass and certified the “winners.” As if to reinforce the November 9th end of the November 3, 2009, election, on January 5, 2010, Judge Benjamin Simpson authorized the Mayor and City Council to be seated and sworn into office over Jim Brannon’s objections. So tell me, for what office in what election is Jim Brannon a candidate? There is no election scheduled for which Jim Brannon is a candidate.
If Jim Brannon prevails in the election contest lawsuit and if the court orders a new election for Coeur d’Alene city council seat 2 or an entirely new election for all the council positions on the November 3 ballot, it would be just that — a new election. If that happens and if Jim Brannon decides to become a candidate in that new election, then I’m sure he will fully comply with all applicable Idaho campaign finance laws.
Comment by Bill — August 3, 2010 @ 6:46 am
Comment by mary — August 3, 2010 @ 7:56 am
And here’s one more on this topic that I’m moving up.
Cory,
Clearly you are a woman of independent thought and I applaud your loyalty. But you miss on at least two points. As Bill pointed out, Jim is not a candidate, he is a litigant. I am a bit confused by your “example”. You apparently portray Kennedy as your Jane Doe and Jim as Mayor Daly. That is a bit backwards. Kennedy is the candidate with the “machine” and Jim is the grass roots candidate of the little people. If you are going to look for a “machine” backing anybody, look to Kennedy not Jim Brannon. Jims job dismissal and its timing are prime examples of the CDA machine at work. There is no way I am gullible enough to believe that Kennedy is footing his legal bills without help (or at all). I’m sure the checks are drawn on his account (should anybody ask for proof). I am, shall we say, dubious as to where the money has originated. And I am completely in the dark about your comment regarding compaign finance laws. What do they have to do with the lawsuit? This lawsuit is brought by an ex-candidate questioning the legality of this particular election. I ask you these questions respectfully, mindful of your right to an opinion.
Comment by rochereau — August 3, 2010 @ 7:43 am
Comment by mary — August 3, 2010 @ 7:58 am
Cory, there are elected officials whose job is protecting the public trust. The county clerk is to run fair and honest elections, audit poll books, report fraud and investigate irregularities. The county prosecutor prosecutes those who commit fraud. This is a built in check and balance our system depends on. We need to ask ourselves the simple question: Are these functions being done in Kootenai County presently?
Comment by WannaBe JD — August 3, 2010 @ 8:52 am
All throughout life people grow and are promoted to where they exceed their own level competence. As I recall it was coined in the early 60’s and titled “The Peter Principle”. This I think is what has occurred in the Clerk’s office, after all, it is a detail job.
Comment by Ancientemplar — August 3, 2010 @ 9:12 am
So much for this being an insignificant site. And on that note, I’d like to say “Good morning!” to Victoria Bruno, one of our leading blurkers from City Hall. How is your day going, Victoria?
Comment by Dan — August 3, 2010 @ 10:52 am
Regarding Ms. English’s comment, she’s obviously as confused regarding this issue. The machine owns City Hall, as rochereau points out. They have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. It is that important to them.
The question the public needs to ask, is why is a piddly city council seat so important to the powers in this town? Important enough that the powers-that-be are willing to risk prison to rig an election? What is really going on? Is there money changing hands? How much money? Who is benefiting from the status quo and why do they need so badly to maintain it?
The indirect answer is public corruption. This area is rife with it. And the simple truth is that the people who threw this election took advantage of a bumbling, incompetent buffoon at the County Clerk’s office to help pull off their crime.
Comment by Dan — August 3, 2010 @ 10:58 am
I am not Victoria Dan
Comment by WannaBe JD — August 3, 2010 @ 11:10 am
I feel such the fool.
Sorry, Wendy.
Comment by Dan — August 3, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
Cory,
I wonder if you are as adamant about the actual and accurate performance of the county clerks job as you are with your mystical election challenge hypotheticals?
Comment by Wallypog — August 3, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Corey’s hypothetical situation is a perfect example of how a spouse holds bias. I mean really, is she going to NOT support her husband? After all – her name is on the Tote a Vote business. She is the Vice President. Gad – this whole case is just pathetic.
Comment by Stebbijo — August 3, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
I don’t know if you have missed my point, or you get it and are responding with some rather convoluted logic to avoid the issue. The point is this: if a “litigant” (any litigant: rich, powerful, hooked up, OR a “man of the people”) takes action that seeks to or could change the outcome of an election (set aside, nullify, new election ordered, whatever,) it is reasonable to have a process in place requiring any party to disclose his/her backing. And these processes should apply equally to each party, regardless of standing.
Comment by Cory English — August 3, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
I think that Cory brings up a valid issue: If the point is to hold a new election, then the people have a right to know who is behind the efforts to have a new election.
However, Cory’s argument is flawed. That’s because the accountability she is asking for should have already been provided by her husband. The government itself should be responsible to ensure that elections are honest and that the rules are being followed. In the case of Brannon v. Kennedy, BOTH parties should be petitioning the government to redo the election. The City of CDA should be suing the county for not providing a fair election. That’s not the case.
No, the issue, and the power manipulating things behind the scenes, is clear here: The City of Coeur d’Alene’s attorneys have sided with the government already in power. The County Prosecutor has sided with the City. (The same city that gave his wife a juicy $100,000 art contract.) And Kennedy’s own Good Ol’ Boy attorney sides with the government. You have a bully government forcing the people to accept a dishonest election and a government fighting to cover up the gross negligence of the County Clerk.
The people in power, and the big developers who support (or own) them, are the ones who benefit here. Flat-out. That’s your answer, Cory.
Jim Brannon is the little guy. He’s broke. He’s unemployed. He has no power. He has no influence. The government, including Ms. English’s husband, have everything to lose. Kennedy and his wealthy, big developer boss have everything to lose. They are bullies, plain and simple.
Face it: Elections are an anathema to these clowns. Look to the November ballot where there is a Constitutional amendment to take away your right to vote. Kennedy and the progressive-elitists who run this place will be all in favor of it. The government, and the progressive-elites, hate elections.
Comment by Dan — August 3, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
Cory, I appreciate you voicing your opinion here. It’s helpful to have a public dialog on these issues and you bring up a question that other people might be confused about as well: Is the Election Challenge a campaign to get Jim Brannon onto the CdA City Council? The answer is NO. That election is done and there is NO current election for city council.
The issue of reporting any donations to the legal expenses for the Election Challenge is an important one. Any law suit is expensive. This one is particularly expensive because your husband, the County Clerk, has been very unwilling to allow access the the documents from the last election. Compared to a similar Election Challenge down in Boise a number of years ago, where the Ada County officials opened the doors and documents without hesitation, your husband has been downright obstructive. And that’s not just my opinion, it’s been told to me by three other equal-level County officials.
The gist of my response is this: Funding for the legal investigation of the last election would be much easier if your husband would cooperate and allow the examination of the PUBLIC documents.
The Tote-a-Vote business that you and your husband run, and any possible conflict of interest therein, is a whole different subject.
Comment by mary — August 3, 2010 @ 7:21 pm
Cory,
Please explain why you think knowing the identities of those supporting an contest election is important? How does knowing who supports a contest or the contestant(s) have any bearing whatsoever on the factual and legal issues in the election contest? It neither proves nor disproves the issues. That’s why elements of proof in criminal prosecutions rarely require that motivation even be shown let alone proven. (The exception is showing the “hate” in “hate crimes.”) Knowing who supports Jim Brannon’s election contest lawsuit may make it easier for those whose official conduct is questioned to try and find a way to divert attention from his own official malconduct or dereliction of duty, but it neither proves nor disproves the official malconduct or dereliction.
Comment by Bill — August 3, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
In response to Mrs. English’s allegation that I responded with ” with some rather convoluted logic to avoid the issue” because I am not buying into her “fantasy” – it appears that she may be missing my point and that is nepotism in our government. This election case is just full of it like Dan mentioned.
Now, if Mrs. English had not been listed as the V.P. of Tote A Vote – I would not have a point. I was curious so I looked it up. She brought it up when she identified herself, “I, too am a voter, resident of the county, woman of independent thought, and, yes, DOTC’s wife.” Geesh.
Comment by Stebbijo — August 3, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
Cory,
Your attempt to deflect has obviously failed.
The issue is: Did the county clerk follow the law?
Let me tell you a story, not a fantasy, but a real time story of a visit I had at a recent social function with a former employee of the county elections office who served under a different Clerk some years back. I asked what the former employee thought of the election contest. The person was aware of it but said, quite frankly had not paid much attention to it and didn’t know enough about it to comment. So I asked, “well if you were counting absentee ballots back then and more than one ballot was in an envelope, or if ballots came in from unqualified voters because of residency, or signatures or time stamps were missing, would you have counted those votes?” I got a look of disbelief and a “absolutely not” response. The person then asked, “Is that what is going on? “The law says we can’t count those kind of ballots.
So Cory, how would you answer these questions?
Comment by Gary Ingram — August 3, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
Well said, Gary, I too await Ms. English’s reply.
Comment by mary — August 3, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
Does anyone know more about the disallowed Huetter voters. There was a case where Mr. English concluded that certain individuals were not Huetter residents although they signed candidacy petitions for the eventual winners. The were declared non residents but there was no remedy. The election stood. How goofy is that. Was anyone at that hearing? I believe it was in February of this year involving Lange Sumner, the manager of the Grail.
Comment by WannaBe JD — August 4, 2010 @ 7:50 am
How could they be valid enough to sign the candidacy form but then declared non-residents? Were they later disallowed on the candidacy forms?
Comment by mary — August 4, 2010 @ 8:16 am
The were declared non residents, their signatures still counted and nothing was done…the election stood. Dan English presided over this hearing
Comment by WannaBe JD — August 4, 2010 @ 9:12 am
Dan English, is the only elected democrat that I ever voted for. We are both natives and I considered him to be more honest, than the other democratic elected city or county officials. Now,because of the
contested city election from last fall, I’ll have to take a second look at all the candidates running for the county clerks position.
Comment by kageman — August 4, 2010 @ 10:11 am
I believe most people knew that Dan was a goof, but they let it slide. I like Dan personally. His friends and fellow party members took advantage of him in the last City election, however. They’ll do it again if Mr. English is re-elected.
Dan: Your friends are not your friends.
Comment by Dan — August 4, 2010 @ 10:17 am
Cory, I honestly did not quite understand the point you were attempting to make. It seemed backwards to me (as I stated). I appreciate you returning to clarify. I have never heard of a lawsuit where litigants were required to name their supporters and/or contributors. That is simply not relevant. Brannons case is in the pursuit of honest election. Simply put, that’s it! Neither big or little people attempting to subvert the process. That has already been done by the CDA machine and, as Dan so eloquently put it, puppet Kennedy and his bully handlers.
Comment by rochereau — August 4, 2010 @ 11:08 am
The spin machine at City Hall, and its boot-licking puppet at the Spokesman-Review, are telling the tale that the lawsuit is to replace Mr. Kennedy with Mr. Brannon. Spin. Spin. Spin. That’s where Cory English, and many others, are getting their misinformation.
The truth will come out at the trial, regardless of how the judge rules. The mere thought of that truth getting out terrifies the power elite in this town.
Comment by Dan — August 4, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
Cory, are you going to answer the questions raised in post #16? I assumed from your postings that you wanted to engage in a dialog about the election contest.
Comment by yabetcha — August 4, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
Boot-licking puppet – that is really really good!! LOL
Comment by Stebbijo — August 4, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
Now, I’ve been following this a case a little bit. And, well what proof is there that the county clerk made any mistakes? Isn’t that what the lawsuit is intending to find out? Or are we just assuming that since a lawsuit is underway, that the allegations are already decided to be true? Are we just skipping process now, are we all qualified to make rulings?
Comment by SPC_Spaulding — August 11, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
SPC_Spaulding,
The function of the lawsuit is to present evidence to the Court so the Court can determine if the allegations raised in the lawsuit are factual.
We are all qualified to form and express our own opinions.
Comment by Bill — August 11, 2010 @ 5:13 pm
Bill, I put my question simply, and you rephrased it into something not so simple, but in effect you still answered “yes” by re-stating it. So thanks for trying to confuse and deflect.
But on another note, every once in a while I have seen comments like this:
“I think that Cory brings up a valid issue: If the point is to hold a new election, then the people have a right to know who is behind the efforts to have a new election.
However, Cory’s argument is flawed. That’s because the accountability she is asking for should have already been provided by her husband. The government itself should be responsible to ensure that elections are honest and that the rules are being followed. In the case of Brannon v. Kennedy, BOTH parties should be petitioning the government to redo the election. The City of CDA should be suing the county for not providing a fair election. That’s not the case.
No, the issue, and the power manipulating things behind the scenes, is clear here: The City of Coeur d’Alene’s attorneys have sided with the government already in power. The County Prosecutor has sided with the City. (The same city that gave his wife a juicy $100,000 art contract.) And Kennedy’s own Good Ol’ Boy attorney sides with the government. You have a bully government forcing the people to accept a dishonest election and a government fighting to cover up the gross negligence of the County Clerk.”
And it is certainly phrased as fact, not opinion. And it seems that most people here are in agreement, or at least they don’t offer any corrections. What proof/evidence is there that the government allowed and forced the public to accept the gross negligence of the County Clerk?
It just seems to me that the people here believe their opinions ARE facts. The lawsuit goes to court again in September, right? If the court decides that the consensus here is wrong, will everyone accept it, or will everyone still cry “injustice!?”
Comment by SPC_Spaulding — August 12, 2010 @ 1:10 am
SPC-Spaulding
The lawsuit is the process for determining if the allegations are factual. The process is not being skipped.
We are all qualified to form and express our own opinions. I suppose most people believe their own opinions are based on facts.
The lawsuit is scheduled for trial in September. The Court will decide if the evidence it hears supports or does not support the allegations raised in the complaint. If there is a consensus here on OpenCdA as you suggest, the Court will not decide if it is right or wrong, because “consensus of OpenCdA” is not an issue before the Court. I don’t know who will and who won’t accept the District Court’s judgment in the case. I’ll take a wild guess and speculate that whoever prevails in the District Court will accept it and whoever does not prevail will not. Public acceptance of the District Court’s verdict will probably be based on how well the public understood the issues, the evidence, and the Court’s application of law.
Comment by Bill — August 12, 2010 @ 6:17 am
SPC Spaulding, Solid evidence of improper voting has been found. A lot of it.
You ask what proof there is that the government allowed it and forced the public to accept it? The County offered the election results to the CdA City Council, even though some of their totals were not consistent, and they knew it. They offered the results even knowing there were serious issues in an election decided by only 5 votes. The City Council accepted the results WITHOUT QUESTION, even though they too were fully aware of the razor’s edge margin in the results. That’s now the government acted. The public is not responding, and it is not pretty.
Comment by mary — August 12, 2010 @ 7:43 am
I’m sorry Dan, I guess I was unclear. Obviously the lawsuit has nothing to do with this site, and is not going to involve this site. But I’m also not wondering about public acceptance, because I don’t think the public as a whole really knows about, or cares about this issue. Most just accept election results. People vote. People win. People lose. Doesn’t seem like much to cry about to me.
Mary, if the numbers WERE inconsistent, and the County and City knew it, then it sounds like a pretty solid case. But how do you know about this “solid evidence?” And, just for my own edification, is it assumed that some big-wigs rigged an election for a city council seat? Seems kind of ridiculous. And if one were to rig an election, wouldn’t one want to make SURE of the win, not leave only a five vote margin? Or is it assumed only that mistakes were made? Because either way, this all sounds like a hateful crusade against one person, that the county clerk was either duped or in on some crazy “Once we secure this last city council seat, our power will be UNSTOPPABLE!!! MWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!” conspiracy, and that he should now be ostracized.
I mean, it’s a city council seat.
Comment by SPC_Spaulding — August 12, 2010 @ 8:12 am
The disorganization and sloppy administration of the elections have probably been going on for years under the current officials. Even the poll workers know the many weaknesses of the system. If *someone* was concerned about a tight race, it would be easy for their team to take full advantage of the system’s defects and pile on improper voters. Especially *someone* with a history and knowledge of Kootenai County’s frail system.
And least you accuse me of pointing to just one person, I’m not. There are several who fit that description.
But the bottom line is this: It is Dan English’s JOB to supervise all elections run by the County. The buck stops on his desk. It was the CdA City Council’s JOB to make sure the election results were valid. They did not. We, the voters, deserve better.
Comment by mary — August 12, 2010 @ 8:51 am
My opinion here is that the forces that threw this election are arrogant. It was their belief that they were going to win anyway, so their efforts were to pad that margin by between 90 to 200 votes. They underestimated.
Precisely. So why are the City and County not doing their best to assure the public that the process was legitimate? By that I mean cooperating with the plaintiff by providing open access to public records, as was done in Ada County.
The city council seats (there are six of them) are tied to a lot of questionable things going on in this town. Just read this website to get wind of many of them. The City leases a lot of property. The City and the LCDC pay out lots of money. If you follow the money, you’ll discover whose interest is being protected by maintaining the status quo.
Comment by Dan — August 12, 2010 @ 9:42 am
All I see on this website is arrogance, supported by opinions or wild assumptions. Here-say. If there were facts to support these allegations, the problem would have been corrected. And as for “the voters, deserve better” there will always be a few who think they got ripped off. But that’s all it usually is. Just a few. And just their feelings. Maybe this case is different. I doubt it. But we’ll see in a month or so.
Comment by SPC_Spaulding — August 12, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
The funny thing about your response, Spaulding, is that you think
Excuse me for laughing! No they would not necessarily be fixed. It depends upon who benefits from the outcome. Follow the money & power.
Comment by mary — August 12, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
Spaulding seems hasty to jump to conclusions.
To quote one of my favorite lines from the 1960s: You see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear.
Comment by Dan — August 12, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
Excuse me for laughing, but assertions usually cite facts. I still haven’t seen any. Still here-say. And to quote from my generation:
“To question and protest is a right, to demand fairness and equality by any means is just, to win these things in open court is an ultimate triumph, but to sue for personal gain is the reason why sharks won’t eat lawyers.”
Comment by SPC_Spaulding — August 13, 2010 @ 12:37 am
Okay SPC, I can play your silly word games. Speaking of “fact”, just exactly what “personal gain” will accrue to Jim Brannon should he prevail in court? Is it possible that you can devine what is in his mind? If so, you are a walking gold mine and wasting your time here when you could be exploiting your talent. Next, did you not see the pictures of some of the illegal ballots? How much more factual can it get….what exactly is your definition of ‘hearsay’ (which is, by the way, the correct word). And while I’m asking, what is your definition of arrogance? Okay, now it is my time to laugh.
Comment by rochereau — August 13, 2010 @ 8:22 am
Comment by SPC_Spaulding — August 13, 2010 @ 12:37 am “To question and protest is a right, to demand fairness and equality by any means is just”
So SPC_Spaulding, why do you think the City of Coeur d’Alene and Kootenai County are doing everything possible to stop the lawsuit? Why don’t they want to clear their names?
I want honest elections and I want open honest government. I don’t mind the City or the County spending my tax dollars in the name of honesty rather than chili feeds to create fun for the employees.
Comment by LTR — August 13, 2010 @ 8:37 am
Oh. My apologies, I have been enjoying a little bit of R&R. … Ignorance or closed mindedness, which is it?
Comment by SPC_Spaulding — August 19, 2010 @ 6:56 am
SPC could you clarify just what you are alluding to with “ignorance or closed mindedness”.
Comment by rochereau — August 19, 2010 @ 8:37 am
SPC, I just got caught up on all the back and forth and may I be so impertinent as to suggest that it is you who are afflicted with “ignorance or close mindedness”?
Comment by Gary Ingram — August 19, 2010 @ 10:51 pm