An article in this morning’s Coeur d’Alene Press reveals that once again, Kootenai County Clerk Dan English has chosen to ignore the law. This time, he has directed his staff to participate in electioneering by handing out cards with the names of write-in candidates.
Tim Hurst, chief deputy secretary of state, said, “That’s akin to electioneering at the polls.” Akin to electioneering? No, that is electioneering. Idaho Code 18-2318(1)(b) prohibits circulating cards or handbills “of any kind” within 100 feet of a polling place on the day of election. I presume that “on the day of any … election” means on any day the polling place is open to voting, including early voting.
And what did English say? According to the article, he had gotten approval from an employee at the Secretary of State’s Office. If he got approval as the newspaper article said, it’s because he sought approval — not because he asked if it was lawful. Isn’t that the “Nuremberg Defense?”
Hey, hey! Ho, ho!
The County Clerk has got to go!
Comment by Dan — October 28, 2010 @ 9:21 am
A point of parlimentary procedure please. I refer you to the long standing doctrine of “The Rule of Tuesdays”.
As any clerk in Idaho is aware, this Rule provides, specifically, that what to do and how to do something is subject to the caveat that, to quote High Lord of Justice Irwin, “It depends on what day of the week it is.” Simple as that. Subsection 9 paragraph (c) of the Irwin Treatise on the Rule of Tuesday provides, as explained in the commentary section relevant thereto (subsection 13)…”The Rule of Tuesdays is sometimes referred to as the “Because Doctrine” which loosely translated (as all laws and doctrines are meant to be)means that clerks are permitted to do what they want and determine how to do something without reference to bothersome things such as statutes, “because” they want to do so, they can do so, and nobody should question their decision on any matter unless they want to be subject to ridicule by the ruling class and/or a public flogging. In other words, the rule provides and it is well supported in longstanding Kootenai County tradition that a clerk may not know (or care) what the law says but the clerk is permitted to do whatever the/she wants, “because”. So, henceforth when questioning either Clerk English or Chief Deputy Hurst, please attempt to understand their response in the context of the Rule of Tuesdays.
Comment by Happy Trails — October 28, 2010 @ 9:26 am
I wish I had known the Rule of Tuesdays when our kids were growing up, I could have used it to assert my authority. But I did anyway by using my own made up rule, called “Because I’m the Mom!”
Too bad our elected officials don’t have more respect for the Rule of Law.
Comment by mary — October 28, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
Mary,
During his opening comments presiding over the election contest, Senior Judge Charles Hosack ranted his concern that the election contest process, if abused, would amount to anarchy.
It turns out that far from being anarchistic itself, the election contest so courageously and tenaciously fought by Jim and Christine Brannon and Starr Kelso was the action that exposed the anarchy of Idaho’s Secretary of State and the Kootenai County Clerk. Lawlessness and the selective and preferential application of the laws are the determinants of anarchy. The election contest was the diagnostic instrument, not the disease.
Comment by Bill — October 28, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
The Press article quotes Hurst saying there is no penalty for violating the policy.
Hurst’s gratuitous comment overlooks an important fact. While violating a policy may have no penalty, violating the electioneering statute does carry one. Furthermore, the electioneering law states that it is the duty of any election officer to enforce this law:
Looks like what we have here is yet another “failure of duty” by Dan English.
Comment by Bill — October 28, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
Seriously, a constable?
Comment by Stebbijo — October 28, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
Also, we can complain to U.S. Attorneys and the FBI. U.S. attorneys will field election-day complaints
Comment by Stebbijo — October 28, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
I’m inclined to think Dan is a pretty good person. That being said I can’t stop hearing the song, “I’m your puppet”
Just pull my little strings and I’ll do anything, I’m your puppet.
Or something like that.
Anyone can get caught up in the ins and outs of small community politics and become beholding or blinded by length of service. Maybe that’s the case with Mr English.
This whole thing seems so, well, so, choreographed, for lack of a better term. Without being lumped in with “making claims without substence” that can happen in here, I’m just saying this looks kind of funny.
I don’t recall any other election in this area where a list of write in’s was ever talked about or referenced in this fashion. I ran as a write in years ago and for better or worse, while not getting many votes, perhaps, just perhaps I would have gotten one more. 🙂
FYI, Happy trails, I glazed over after your first two lines, get to the point and say what you want to say.
Comment by Eric — October 29, 2010 @ 10:23 am
Eric,
Being a good person does not absolve or justify bad or illegal conduct. It may mitigate the penalty, but it does not excuse the conduct.
The general public was badly uninformed because of the complete lack of timely, thorough, and complete news coverage of the election contest. That is not the public’s fault; that is the fault of our remarkably biased local and regional news media. The evidence reveals that both the Idaho Secretary of State, Ben Ysursa, and the Kootenai County Clerk, Dan English, failed to obey or in some cases knowingly violated various state election laws. Some of those violations would not have directly affected the outcome of the election, but others would have. That is the importance of consistent conformity to the election laws. As Chief Deputy Secretary of State Tim Hurst agreed in his sworn testimony during the trial, Kootenai County Clerk Dan English’s failure to keep the absentee ballot records required by Idaho Code 34-1011 was a failure of duty. Had that duty been performed, it is very possible and even likely the election contest would have been avoided.
People have unfairly criticized Jim Brannon for bringing the election contest, but too few people are willing to criticize Kootenai County Clerk Dan English’s failure of duty, disobedience of the law, that necessitated the legal action.
Comment by Bill — October 29, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Thanks Bill.
Maybe you misread my post. Needlesstosay, I by no means abolve on this in fact I make the point that length of service could be the problem as I believe is the case here. Kind of getting a little too cozy with certain groups so to speak.
Mary makes a stellar point in that if he had to ask if it was OK to have this “list” means there was some intent of some kind. I believe it was the write in people that pushed for an answer to, “Can we do this?” in which Mr English seems to have been all to willing to comply with. I don’t like it as I see it and will vote accordingly.
Comment by Eric — October 29, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Eric,
Thank you for the clarification.
I think part of the underlying problem is the Secretary of State’s and the County Clerks’ rush to go to all-mail or electronic voting via the Internet. This coming week might properly be viewed as a dress rehearsal for those processes. Kootenai County has or expects to receive about 9000 absent elector ballots, many by mail, but also many cast at satellite voting locations before election day. It seems logical to me that the best process is to conform scrupulously to all the existing election laws and see how conformity affects election administration on November 2 and beyond. It may work out just fine, or it may be ugly. Regardless, it should indicate to the Secretary of State and the Clerks which existing laws work well, which ones need to be amended, which ones need to be repealed, and which new laws may be needed. The key is, those are actions that must be taken by the Legislature, not by the Secretary of State and Clerks unilaterally and illegally. The Idaho Constitution, Article II, Section 1, makes it very clear that is the process to be followed. The Legislative Department enacts the laws, the Executive Department executes them.
Comment by Bill — October 29, 2010 @ 12:51 pm