Huetter dispute goes to state

HUETTER – Huetter is little more than a blip on the Kootenai County map, but the tiny town of 100 residents could soon mark a new spot in Idaho elections law.

An ongoing dispute over whether two elected town officials are eligible to serve their terms in office has been appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.

“I said from the beginning I was going to keep it up until the last thing because I think I’m in the right. I’ll take it as far as it will go,” said Bradley Keene. “It’s basically the little guy standing up for himself.”

Keene was elected mayor and Jeni Brown was elected councilwoman in the 2007 general election, but both failed to respond to challenges to their voter registration from other Huetter residents, including ousted mayor Jackie Meeks. Meeks remains a Huetter official because she was appointed to sit on the City Council during a special meeting in December.

The failure by Keene and Brown to respond to the registration challenges prompted the Kootenai County Clerk to drop them from the voter rolls.

What that means is at the heart of the debate. The city’s official position is that once the two lost their voter registrations they also lost their eligibility to serve in elected office and were automatically removed from their positions. Keene and Brown contend that no official action was taken to remove them from office, and because their voter registration was reinstated they retain their eligibility and positions.

District Court Judge Lansing Haynes in May sided with the city on the matter.

Some of the case law cited in attorney’s filings dates from the 1800s and early 1900s.

“It’s been about 100 years since the Idaho Supreme Court has looked at these types of election law issues,” said Susan Weeks, Keene’s and Brown’s attorney.

The Idaho Supreme Court could refer the matter to Idaho’s appellate court or hear the case itself. Neither will likely happen for a few months.

Meanwhile, Huetter City Attorney Art Macomber said that litigation costs continue to rise for the small city.

“All we get is a legal challenge that is very expensive and that uses up the city’s budget,” Macomber said. “There are other ways to demonstrate they want to be on the council.”

Macomber said that Keene and Brown have not been responsive to his requests for their help working on city issues.

“If they were really interested they could do some work rather than just fighting for a chair,” Macomber said.

Keene said that he has been reluctant to participate in city business because his presence at council meetings has been called disruptive.

As for the case, Weeks said the Supreme Court will be the final arbiter.

“We’re just seeking a final opinion to settle the matter for good,” she said.