Brannon Lawsuit On Hold — For Now

12 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  bpoole on December 15 at 8:25 a.m.

  No, the city is looking out for the interests of the residents.

• 

  ejs on December 15 at 8:25 a.m.

  Too early to tell

• 

  Soaf on December 15 at 8:28 a.m.

  Brannon & the flock of crows that he has surrounded himself with will claim victory. That you can be sure of. It doesn’t mean anything at this point but that won’t stop the cawing.

• 

  The_Onset on December 15 at 8:32 a.m.

  I’d be surprised if they can compromise this one.

  Either Brannon wins and gets the election thrown out and we have another election or the City et. al. wins and the election stands.

  Doesn’t seem there is like much of a middle ground.

  No harm in talking because the assigned judge, Hosack, retires effective January 1, 2010 and no replacement has been named.

• 

  Phaedrus on December 15 at 8:52 a.m.

  “Unless Mr. Brannon dismisses the lawsuit, it will ultimately have to be decided by a judge,” Gridley said of the city’s role in the suit.

  I commend the city for taking this responsible course of action in its willingness to listen to what Brannon’s attorney has to say, but Gridley’s quote tells the whole story. I’m not sure what Brannon is hoping to accomplish with this sit down.

• 

  nic on December 15 at 9:10 a.m.

  “Gridley said Monday he hasn’t seen any evidence of election wrongdoing in the suit” That’s because there isn’t any.

  “The issues presented by the contest are focused on ensuring that all future elections, not just ones that turn on razor-thin margins, are run with precision. (Starr’s letter to Gridley)” Which goes back to a point I wrote here in another thread a couple days ago. Brannon isn’t suing the city because they broke the law, they’re suing the city because the law is bad and might need changed.

  “Brannon said Monday a meeting between the sides shouldn’t be taken that he is conceding the election.” But it does show he realizes there is a possibility that his suit will fail. Epically.

  “He also filed an injunction preventing the city from installing the winning City Council members” So what. If the council can’t install the newly elected members, I guess they’ll just have to use the old ones until the lawsuit is resolved. BFD.

  “The suit alleges that inadmissible ballots were counted” Inadmissible if you believe in conspiracy theories. Admissible according to current laws.

  “Some of those include names of several voters who allegedly don’t live in Coeur d’Alene.” Yet those alleged voters are allowed to vote in Cd’A under current laws. Again, this is where the city followed the law and Brannon’s sympathizers don’t like the law.

  “He (Starr) said he erred on the side of “inclusion” while facing a tight timeline for submittal.” My guess is he just wanted the publicity. Shock & Awe people.

  “English said news of the county removal was ‘confusing’” With all due respect to DOTC - thank you Captain Obvious.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 15 at 10:10 a.m.

  Brannon lacks the resources to hunt this baby down. So he wants a concession on something he deems important so he can save some face. Hence the meeting. But Gridley nails the futility of the exercise. There is really nothing to be done to further Brannon’s goals unless a judge does it. The city can’t concede on any issues raised in the complaint because they lack the authority. They can’t really admit they were wrong by following the law. The meeting appears to be pointless particularly when examined in the context of Kelso’s letter.

• 

  DFO on December 15 at 10:43 a.m.

  If you want to see what passes for informed debate at the Coeur d’Alene Press online, check out this thread under the Brannon story: http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2009/12/15/news/news01.txt .

• 

  simpleton on December 15 at 10:47 a.m.

  I agree with Sisyphus that Brannon probably doesn’t have the resources to follow this through to the bitter end, but I disagree that there cannot be any compromise. My thinking is that the city will agree to 1) ask the legislature to make some changes in election law, say requiring absentee ballots go out sooner or something, and 2) promise to take steps in future elections to guarantee there will be no problems like those alleged (without admitted they ever occurred in the first place). Brannon will then declare this to be a moral victory for the voters of Coeur d’Alene, say this was never about him anyway and dismiss his lawsuit. Hey, it could happen.

• 

  Phaedrus on December 15 at 11:27 a.m.

  Simpleton, good analysis.

• 

  danofthecommunity on December 15 at 1:22 p.m.

  If there are suggested changes to current voting rights for our military and overseas voters then that would take an act of Congress since it is federal law.

  That’s above the pay grade of even the Idaho Legislature.

• 

  Bent on December 15 at 9:27 p.m.

  I am with Simpleton, Sis and Nic — except I doubt the city will agree to pursue the changes… Why would they? It’s not the city’s problem. in fact, if I were in a desicion making role on this case, I would call their bluff … they already blinked several times…

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic