[
The Idaho Secretary of State’s Office has proposed changes to Idaho’s election laws. Many of these changes result from the election contest lawsuit challenging the November 2009 Coeur d’Alene City Council election. That lawsuit is awaiting a hearing before the Idaho Supreme Court.
The legislation proposed yesterday (March 14, 2011) by Chief Deputy Secretary of State Tim Hurst is House Bill 275, numbered H0275. The link is to the Idaho Legislature website.
Because the bill has just been introduced, there is still time for electors to study the proposal and submit your comments to your legislator.
H-275 is problematic. I would not like to be a legislator voting a single yea or nay on a bill that overhauls numerous and unrelated sections of election laws. The bill needs to be broken down into several separate bills. It does not appear to address any of the issues that were uncovered in the city election contest. It appears to be directed at the consolidated election process that just got started this year.
The bill makes the county taxpayers pick up the tab for all city election costs. Nothing in the bill addresses the issue of non residents voting in local elections. There are 27 separate sections, some amend language, others add new additions. This bill needs a public hearing with lots of time for public response between introduction and committee action.
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 15, 2011 @ 12:17 pm
Gary,
I’ve skimmed the bill and have found a few tiny band-aids for a lot of sucking chest wound issues raised in the election contest.
I agree completely with your assessment about the need for deliberative analysis, not haste.
It is my opinion that for years, Ysursa, Hurst, and the county clerks have failed in their duty to regularly re-examine the election laws and keep them updated. The election contest revealed serious defects. Instead of repairing the obvious defects, H0275 seems more an effort to cover them over with a thin coat of hastily-applied paint. Section 27 gasps breathlessly that this is an emergency! Do something (though not necessarily the right thing) fast so no more legislators than necessary will come to understand just how badly Ysursa and others have neglected their duty. In other words, Ysursa thinks that a failure of duty on his part constitutes a legislative emergency. If that’s so, the emergency was of his own creation.
Comment by Bill — March 15, 2011 @ 12:39 pm
Skimmed it as well. Saw nothing that would remove the winner/incumbent from a lawsuit in cases when they aren’t charged with election malconduct. In other words, nothing to change the situation where Mr. Kennedy was personally named because Dan English ran a shoddy election. I assume that Mr. Kennedy is too busy lubricating his boss’ financial interests in property adjacent to McEuen Field to be rocking the boat on this issue.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2011 @ 1:45 pm