Wow, finally the Press has the news I’ve been wondering about: The headline on this morning’s Local Section reads “Three Charged with Voting Illegally” (I would link to the online version of this article, but it’s not there because they usually don’t post the Local section online.)
The three accused of voting illegally are Nancy White, Ronald Prior and Susan Harris. They face up to six months in jail or $500 in fines if they are found guilty of this misdemeanor. The article details that Nancy White is scheduled to go to trial in March. She has plead “not guilty”. Prior and Harris don’t have a court date yet.
Your thoughts?
At this point my opinion is whoo-hoo! We’ll see what the ultimate outcome is. On a more pertinent note, as these charges have been filed, doesn’t that publicly prove the illegalities of the election? And should it not follow that a.) Jim doesn’t owe court costs and b.) yet another (key word) reason Kennedys costs should not have been paid. I am particularly delighted that 2 of the 3 are those who just “couldn’t remember” for whom the voted. Sometimes I do believe in karma!!
Comment by rochereau — December 10, 2010 @ 9:21 am
Whoa, not so fast. Not to defend the reputation of the accused, but they have been charged, not convicted, of having committed crimes against the legal voters of CDA. So while the charges do not “prove the illegalities of the election” they certainly are a welcome recognition by law enforcement that indeed fraud may have been committed in this disputed city election. The host over on Huckleberries and his gallery have continuously mocked those who suggested that fraud was a element of this election. This news is surely a pie in their face.
I’m curious why the file on Prior and Harris has been sealed.
Comment by Gary Ingram — December 10, 2010 @ 10:47 am
Nah – illegal voters in CDA? You have to be kidding! Great news, tho – I am happy to see this action taken. It’s about time – and this may be the tip of the iceberg.Anyone who has followed this case knows there is a whole lot more to it.
However, I have always wondered why some of the voters were asked how they voted? I would think that portion of the case would have been a closed courtroom. So, I wonder if Prior and Harris had that portion of their testimony sealed because our vote is essentially private? I think Judge Hosack should have tossed them all out – how a Candadian(s) from a commercial address still stand as a legal vote because he was not available for testimony is beyond me ect.ect.ect. It doesn’t really matter how they voted if the vote was illegal. There was enough foundation to toss them out. But, it will be a great case for the Supremes to figure out UOCAVA or let every tom, dick, and harry vote in the CDA city elections with no real valid residency. Unreal.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 10, 2010 @ 9:06 pm
Stebbijo,
To answer your question about why some voters were asked how they voted: The secrecy of an elector’s vote is preserved if the Court determines that the elector voted legally.
There is a two-step process defined in Idaho Code 34-2017.
In the first step the elector as sworn witness was asked some questions which would enable the Court to determine if the elector was legally registered and voted legally. If the Court determined the elector was a legal voter, counsel was prohibited from proceeding to the second step and asking how the elector voted. Thus, the secrecy of a legal elector’s vote was preserved.
However, if the Court determined the elector had voted illegally, then the vote was illegally cast and was not entitled to be protected by secrecy. Only after deciding the elector had voted illegally did the Court allow counsel to ask how the illegal elector voted.
Most, possibly all, of the voters being characterized as “Canadian” are US citizens. Some may have dual citizenship, and some may be Permanent Residents (“landed immigrants”) in Canada. If they have applied for and received PR status in Canada, they are required to sign a declaration as if under oath to the Government of Canada that they are residents of Canada. In other words, they are required to declare to the GoC that they really live in Canada, not the United States. Their travel outside Canada is limited to a few days every five years.
We know some of the US citizens who reside in Canada and voted from there in the November 3, 2009, City of CdA election are PRs. Under UOCAVA, they are entitled to vote in federal elections provided they have complied with the UOCAVA registration and voting requirements. The federal UOCAVA law does not by itself entitle voting in municipal elections. UOCAVA registration and voting can be adopted by states and may be applied to municipalities by adoption of municipal ordinances. Simply put, Judge Hosack was wrong when he ruled the federal UOCAVA law automatically allowed UOCAVA registrants to vote in municipal elections, even in cities where they had never lived. But even though he was wrong, it would still have been necessary to bring the PRs into court so the Court could make its determination under IC 34-2017. Merely declaring any or all PR-cast votes to be illegal would not have resulted in any votes being changed without the PR being in court and under oath.
Even if this case gets to the Supreme Court, the vast majority of corrections that need to be made will be legislative. We recognized that early in the process. In May I sent a four-page mailing to every Idaho state legislator (excluding lame ducks who had been defeated in the primary). The mailing identified several major issues of statewide importance Jim Brannon’s election contest lawsuit had identified, issues requiring legislative attention if not action. It was very clear early on that both the Idaho Secretary of State and the Idaho Attorney General had dismally failed both the legislators and Idaho’s citizens with their neglect of Idaho’s election administration laws. But if the feedback I got from the two legislators who bothered to contact me is any indication, there will not be any changes. In fact, there probably will be some changes, but they are most likely to come from lobbying organizations such as the Association of Idaho Cities who have an interest in preserving the status quo corruptus.
Comment by Bill — December 11, 2010 @ 6:48 am
Thanks Bill for the explanation. I did not realize that a law could force a person to divulge their vote. I think that is wrong – I probably would not remember either.
However,it makes more sense now, but that law you cited says that the elector’s testimony will not be held against them, so why the prosecution after the fact? And, why the seal? I agree that Judge Hosack completely got it wrong – and the law is not correct in that it appears to allow the votes as legal if the voter does not appear. I guess they are smarter for it and lucky for them – they live out of the country. I can see the Supremes adopting some sort of precedent to make those votes from Canada ‘okay’ so they can save their own skin along with the cooperation of the Association of Idaho Cities and Mike Kennedy. They will try to settle it at the local/state level so it doesn’t become a federal issue. Probably why it has to go to the Supremes first, so it’s not handed back to the state. Out judges haven been encouraged to work with our legisltors. What a mess.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 11, 2010 @ 10:46 am
Stebbijo,
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens at the trials.
Comment by Bill — December 11, 2010 @ 11:16 am