Brannon Amends City Election Suit

18 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  OrangeTV on December 11 at 8:37 a.m.

  Brannon is forcing the city to waste money defending what I will intentionally but not deceptively characterize as frivolous.

• 

  Lizard_People on December 11 at 8:45 a.m.

  The frivolity has yet to be tested in the courts. If there are findings of irregularities, then it was very important to get this out in the open.

• 

  nic on December 11 at 8:58 a.m.

  “The amended suit also seeks an injunction preventing the city from “installing” new City Council members at its first meeting in January 2010. ”

  Does that mean the city gets to keep the old city council until this lawsuit is resolved?

• 

  nic on December 11 at 9:01 a.m.

  “Jim Brannon has filed an amendment… dropping Kootenai County, County Clerk Dan English, and ex-county election administrator Deedie Beard from the list of defendants.”

  Did KootCo, DOTC, or Deedie incure any legal fees because of the original suit? If so, will there be any way for those costs to be recouped?

• 

  nic on December 11 at 9:11 a.m.

  “If there are findings of irregularities, then it was very important to get this out in the open.”

  LP, my concern here is that Brannon and pals are accusing the city of an illegal election. Yet, all of their challenges are not where the law was broken, but where the law might need to be changed.

  Point 1: military man formerly owning a home in PF voting in CdA - no law was broken, the the law reqiured that soldier to register with the county court house as his address since he is stationed overseas and has no physical address of his own. Was the law broken? No. Does it need changed? Maybe.

  Point 2: voters did not have to show ID at the polling locations. Some did, some didn’t… but does Idah law require ID for local elections? No. Was the law broken? No. Does the law need changed? Probably. Was the law broken? No. Does the law need changed? Probably.

  Point 3: A voter living in Canada (who considers Canada home) voted absentee. She may live in the great white north, but she’s still a USA citizen. And the law allows her to vote.

  There’s more, but I don’t have the stomach to slog through all of Mary’s and Starr’s trip. But from what I’ve observed, their complaints are that the law is bad, and the law needs to be changed. Yet their accusing the city of breaking the law. But the city isn’t breaking the law. If the law is bad and needs changed, you can’t hold someone at fault for following it. If the law needs changed, lobby to the poeple that write the law. You can’t sue someone for following a bad law.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 11 at 9:20 a.m.

  Clear as mud. Probably cause as contractors they’re not necessary parties. Consistent with what I’ve speculated on before, I’m a thinking Starr wants to pursue this matter solely under the municipal election statutes in an attempt to ignore the election contest statutes. But more curious is why he thinks he gets the injunction preventing the seating of the election winners. That is sure to fail.

  He wants to circumvent the bonding requirement. He also doesn’t want this to be an administrative review because that claim’s too hard to make. So he wants a direct challenge in order to try and get a preponderance standard. If I’m correct, and that’s very questionable, I’m not sure why he thinks a judge will go there.

  Until I see a memo of law, I can’t say its frivolous. Its certainly a head scratcher.

• 

  Digger on December 11 at 9:28 a.m.

  This is the conservative wingnut fringe of CDA trying to do what they complain about when the Libs do it - finding an “activist judge to change the law”.

  Hmmm… Michael Newdow anyone?

• 

  Sisyphus on December 11 at 9:43 a.m.

  “but if Jim Brannon’s allegations are proven in court, the evidence will reveal that for many years the Mayor and City Council of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, have grossly ignored their duty to the voters, a duty to properly supervise the City Clerk in her role as the City’s primary election official.”—this is telling and supports my opinion. Starr has a very large disconnect if he thinks he will make this fly.

  I also perused the amended complaint and it emphasizes the Municipal Election statutes to the exclusion of the the election contest statutes. He’s arguing inter alia that the city has been screwing up elections for years and therefore nothing has been legally accomplished. This is absurd. Its the birther argument putting him in the Orly Taitz category. Does Starr moonlight as a dentist? This argument would give me great heartburn if I was making it cause I’d be afraid that it would be found to be frivolous which would justify a fee award.

• 

  Lizard_People on December 11 at 9:44 a.m.

  Nic— very good point. If what you say is true, then I guess I would have to say it is frivolous sour grapes.

  We’ll see.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 11 at 9:52 a.m.

  Also telling is that any elector could have joined this lawsuit but none of them did. They display such bravado and confidence in cheering Brannon on, then why didn’t they join up as plaintiffs?

• 

  Sisyphus on December 11 at 9:54 a.m.

  “She may live in the great white north, but she’s still a USA citizen. And the law allows her to vote. “—I heard recently that thousands of votes are cast each cycle in Florida from Israel.

• 

  Joker on December 11 at 10:01 a.m.

  They don’t have a clue. It’s a head scratcher as to why Jim Brannon would drop the county from the lawsuit. The county ran the election, not the city. I haven’t seen the amended complaint, but how can they ask a judge to find the election was invalid because of alleged abnormalities and errors if the county isn’t named in the suit.

  The letter sounds very interesting. It sounds like Jim Brannon realizes he’ll need a significant chunk of money for a bond and doesn’t have it. His web site is still down.

  It’s funny how Jim Brannon and company don’t understand the basic system they aspire to run. Maybe somebody needs to go back to school and study civics.

• 

  bpoole on December 11 at 10:17 a.m.

  Craziness, that’s what this is!

• 

  Charlie on December 11 at 10:26 a.m.

  I hear that a lot of votes are cast from the grave in Illinois, especially Chicago. ;-)

• 

  ShoshoneConservative on December 11 at 10:32 a.m.

  Given the close results, I could understand a recount. But PASSING on the FREE (to Brannon) recount, and running to the courts? No.

  If I lived in Coeur d’Alene, I probably would have voted for Brannon in the election. But after this, I wouldn’t. And I’m sure others feel the same.

  Either take the recount, or suck it up and give it another shot next time.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 11 at 10:41 a.m.

  Agreed Sho Con. That is precisely why from a political standpoint the lawsuit makes no sense whatsoever. His cabal look like amateurs.

  “but how can they ask a judge to find the election was invalid because of alleged abnormalities and errors if the county isn’t named in the suit.”—The county was merely a contractor for the city and leaving the county in it muddies his argument that only the municipal election laws apply.

• 

  Phaedrus on December 11 at 10:46 a.m.

  His cabal look like amateurs.—

  They are: LarrySpencer, Bill McCrory, mary Souza at. al

• 

  Stickman on December 11 at 5:31 p.m.

  I hope this all ends soon.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic