Mayor Bloem
[Author’s Note: While I said yesterday in my Newletter that I would hold my opinion about the trial until it was over, I’ve decided to report back each day with some of the events that went on in the courtroom. I will still (try to) keep my outright opinions to the end.]
The second day of the Election Challenge trail was surprising. I was amazed at how much the Chief Elections Officer of our county does NOT know!
But first, let me set the stage for you: The trial is being held in Courtroom # 9 on the first floor of the newer County courthouse building. This is a larger courtroom but it’s unusual because the seating pews (like the hard wooden ones in church) are not evenly divided between the different sides of the room. As you enter the big double doors, the left hand side of the room has a narrow section of pews. This is where the City and County officials and supporters seem to congregate. It’s kind of odd to see them all squished in there, way too close to each other.
And there are a LOT of them there, for two whole days now: Mayor Bloem, Mike Kennedy, Deanna Goodlander, John Bruning, Head City Attorney Mike Gridley, Assistant City Attorney Warren Wilson (mind you, neither of these salaried attorneys are working this trial, they are sitting in the audience on full pay and Warren was texting or checking the internet on his phone this afternoon during testimony, but so was Dan English). Also present were City Administrator Wendy Gabriel and City Clerk Susan Weathers. From the County there has been Dan English, Deedie Beard, Susan Smith, Carrie Phillips (I think). Prosecuting Attorney Barry McHugh along with County Attorney John “Witch Hunt” Cafferty have been there too, but have patronized both sides of the aisle. (Cafferty called this whole trial a “witch hunt” when it was first filed.)
Apparently, the City folks prefer cramming into the small side rather than sitting on the much larger right-hand side of the room with the regular folks. Most of the Election Challenge supporters fill this side, along with some attorneys observing the case and the Press reporter up in the front row.
The attorneys for the trial are all at a long table that extends across the front of the right-hand side of the room. We look at their backs all day. From left to right we see Challenger Jim Brannon, Challenge Attorney Starr Kelso, then Mike Kennedy’s two Attorneys Scott Reed and Peter Erbland, (Kennedy sits in the back of the room in the City “section”) and finally, on the far right, the Attorney hired by the City of CdA to represent them, Mike Hayman.
Judge Hosack is up at his desk in the front of the room and there’s an unused jury box on the left. (The padded seats in the jury box look pretty inviting toward the end of a day on the hard wooden benches.)
Ok, can you see the layout in your head now? Let’s proceed.
Today’s testimony had some unsettling episodes. First, Dan English, who has a whole list of fancy titles with Elections groups all over the state, certainly didn’t seem to know how elections are administered here in Kootenai County. Both yesterday and today, Dan wore thin the phrases “I don’t know” and “I couldn’t say, my staff takes care of that.” From procedures for absentee ballot processing to reports of total votes, how poll workers are trained, what’s contained in the training manual, how information is logged into the data base and what to do if a signature on an absentee ballot is missing…Dan doesn’t know. But he seems perky and nice about it.
Dan English said that any voter who has ever lived in CdA but moved out of the country, should be able to vote in our elections on a constant basis if they have any intention of ever coming back. Even if they have no “fixed” home here, as required by state law. He said all they need is an “attitude” of residency.
There were many other interesting developments today, but the big kicker was this: The 165 people who registered to vote in the CdA City Election on Election Day 2009, the so called “same day” voters, were required to sign a voter registration card from the County. Dan English did not know what the registration card says, so Mr. Kelso got a copy and asked Mr. English to read it to us all. It says that under the risk of perjury, the person pledges that they are 18 years or older, a US Citizen and have lived in Kootenai County for at least 30 days.
Kootenai County! Not Coeur d’Alene. It was a CITY election. The poll workers then ask the new voter to prove, using any document, that they’ve lived in the city for 30 days. But guess what? There’s NO risk of perjury or any other legal consequence for lying about your residence! What can they do? If you’ve live in Dalton Gardens, Hayden or anywhere else in the County, it looks like you’re safe if you want to lie and vote in CdA.
What a messed up system. And we haven’t even talked about the multitude of reports that all came up with different total vote numbers…it is crazy.
Stay tuned, we’ll see what happens tomorrow.
Team Brannon is going to wear the Court down until they get it right one word at a time – over and over again. Really – how is any Judge in Idaho going to tell the people that votes from Canada are legal?
Comment by Stebbijo — September 14, 2010 @ 11:19 pm
“Dan English said that any voter who has ever lived in CdA but moved out of the country, should be able to vote in our elections on a constant basis if they have any intention of ever coming back. Even if they have no “fixed” home here, as required by state law. He said all they need is an “attitude” of residency.”
SOOOOO, does that mean all of the people that “LIVED” in their RV at Blackwell Island have the right to vote because they “INTEND” to come back next summer? Or how about the transients throughout the city? Seems Mr English is kinda vague on the term “RESIDENT”.
Comment by concerned citizen — September 15, 2010 @ 6:55 am
I recognize that Dan has been PRIMED to answer “I don’t know” because of his attempt to be re-elected. Notice he had plenty of answers to the press prior to the trail and now “he doesn’t know”.
Dan said people “should be able to vote in our elections on a constant basis if they have any intention of ever coming back”.
This could be any person who once lived in Cda. Can you imagine a candidate contacting all his/her old classmates who now live in other states to vote in our local election by saying “I will move back one day”? What a joke! Or a person who lives in Hayden can vote if they plan on moving to Cda. in the future?
Comment by LTR — September 15, 2010 @ 8:22 am
Could it be that Dan English thinks that residency is a state of mind?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — September 15, 2010 @ 8:44 am
In reality, there is nothing funny about this. But, I’m having a difficult time typing due to the uncontrolled laughter that has me in its throes. Residency is a state of mind??? “Intention of returning”???? The absurdity defies words. This means I should be able to vote in any number of areas due to my “intentions”. I sincerely hope Mr. Kelso really nails this moronic comment in sumation. I absolutely love the picture of the city officials squished together. Heaven forbid they mix with the common folk. One complaint Mary, please that (or any)picture of Bloem gives me vertigo. Talk about an ick factor! All of this aside, I am seriously disturbed by Judge Hosacks comments regarding this trial. It doesn’t inspire confidence in blind justice.
Comment by rochereau — September 15, 2010 @ 8:58 am
Though it makes no sense to determine your residency by “intent” (in fact, it’s absurd), it may be legal. The judge looks at the statutes and, by gum, if that’s what our Idiot Legislature has deemed so, then the judge makes his ruling accordingly.
This lawsuit points out great gaps in Idaho Code, not to mention great gaps in Dan English’s performance as County Clerk. Fixing English is a job for voters on November 2. Fixing Idaho Code is a job for the Legislature, not a judge. If you don’t like it, then stop re-electing incompetent idiots and do-nothings to the Idaho Legislature. Don’t blame Judge Hosack.
Comment by Dan — September 15, 2010 @ 9:27 am
Dan, you make a good point – that is why I am fairly facinated with the power of our judicial committees because judges do review and help with Idaho code. In fact they can draw up changes that even waive the Idaho Court Rules of Evidence but in the same breath they have to abide by particular Idaho code in order to tweek their latest rule changes or project. No public input invited except for maybe a spouse or two. A judge can ignore any law they want. A judge can also use his discretion and he can use it wisely if chooses to do so. If Judge Hosack says intent makes those votes legal because it coincides with state law then he is off of his rocker. We once again would be a laughing stock – Idaho cannot be that dumb! I refuse to believe it. That is why I have to have absolute faith that he is going to use his good common sense and fairly judge this trial. The legislative review team consists of all judges but they keep no records and they keep no formal dates of meetings. Any layperson can volunteer for these committees – they have ignored the statute that says differently. According to the Judicial Website – these are the guys. See anyone you recognize?
Legislative Review Teams
District Judges
Hon. Renae Hoff
Hon. Michael McLaughlin
Hon. John Stegner
Hon. Barry Wood
Hon. Gregory Moeller
Hon. Stephen Dunn
Hon. Steve Verby
Hon. Benjamin Simpson
Magistrate Judges
Hon. Barry Watson
Hon. Gaylen Box
Hon. Ryan Boyer
Hon. Gary DeMeyer
Hon. David Epis
Hon. R. Ted Israel
Hon. Gregory Kalbfleisch
Hon. James A. Schiller
Comment by Stebbijo — September 15, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
While I live in KC, I don’t live in CDA. Do you mean to tell me that , under Idaho law, if I think I may move to CDA sometime in the nebulous future, it is legal for me to vote in city elections? At a guess, and only a guess, probably nobody living today is responsible for that law. I’ll bet it has been on the books since there have been laws. It has been my understanding that here in northern Idaho, we have very little legislative clout. Pretty much everything is decided by southern state reps. Lord knows, we don’t benefit much in this area. So it follows that, given the law, we all should be able to vote in all Idaho elections as we just might move anywhere at sometime. Yes, I’m being snide…..sort of!
Comment by rochereau — September 15, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
One last comment…..it seems obvious, if Dan is corect, that given the Idaho voting laws, the trial is moot. If statute allows this absurdity, why the trial.
Comment by rochereau — September 15, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
We need the trial to get a judge to fix the mess and if we don’t get a decent judge in the State of Idaho to fix the mess we essentially will not have a vote in Idaho that counts.
Comment by Stebbijo — September 15, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
stebbijo, judges don’t make law. A judges decision can set a legal precedent or interpret an existing law. And said decisions can, and often are, overturned. Legislatures make laws. No judge can “fix this mess”. That is what Dan was saying. If voting outside the district, town, city, state, country etc., is legit. under existing Idaho law, then the sitting judge can only uphold the existing law(s). Hence my question/statement. If indeed statutes uphold outside residency registration, then this trial is moot.
Comment by rochereau — September 15, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
rochereau –
I know what you are trying to tell me – but it is a fine line and they do play and mess with Idaho code at the judicial committee level. The informal custody trial rule is a perfect example – i think. They do ignore laws – it is their constitutional right. I have it in fine print from the AG’s office. They can basically do what they want. They draft statutes and then yes it goes where they want it from there to one of the idiot legislators. But, it is most likely written correctly and what legislator is not going to help the judicial branch get what they want? It all starts at the judicial committee level, it goes into Administrative Conference Meetings ect. – that is why I want Dan to volunteer – Larry should too. I want to see what happens.
Judge Hosack can get it right and trying to convince us to swallow Canadian votes is too big of a pill for any judge to force us to take. Not going to happen.
Comment by Stebbijo — September 15, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
…and he is not going to convince us we have to swallow votes from outside of the city because of “intent.” What ridiculous statute is that anyway?
Comment by Stebbijo — September 15, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
Actually, I think it would be a marvelous thing for Hosack to confirm that anyone can vote in a City election. It would point out the absurdity of the law, but also let people in Coeur d’Alene know that their elections are, have been, and will be subject to outside manipulation. If enough people get upset, then we finally will have change at City Hall.
Comment by Dan — September 15, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
I agree Dan – if it goes that way – it would cause change without a doubt with folks showing up at City Hall with pitch forks in hand and quite possibly the Statehouse.
Comment by Stebbijo — September 15, 2010 @ 4:45 pm
It is being reported that two of Kennedys votes were thrown out and one of Brannons, which would make Brannon 4 votes down.
Comment by kageman — September 15, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
Kage, I take that as good news. It is starting to happen.
Comment by Stebbijo — September 15, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
Stebbijo, the Brannon, Kennedy trial is troubling to me. It appears to me that KC clerk Mr.English doesn’t provide enough oversight in the voting process; esp.if he trusts his subordinates, like he trusts voters to do the right thing and provide the correct information.
I don’t know how any potential city voter cannot know that if you live in the county, or came from a different city,or use your commercial address; you don’t qualify to vote in the CDA city elections.
Comment by kageman — September 15, 2010 @ 9:54 pm