I wrote my short and snappy email to the prosecuter of Kootenai County that basically asked that he restore integrity to our local government. He replied in a coined response arguing against Mary Souza who is evidently a recognized attorney at large. Here is Kootenai County Prosecuter, Barry McHugh’s reply:
Mr. Brannon’s lawsuit is based on Title 50, Chapter 4 of the Idaho Code, and challenges the legality of the contract between the City of Coeur d’Alene and Kootenai County for Kootenai County to conduct the election. It is not a contest under Idaho law that goes to the legality or illegality of votes cast in the election. As indicated in Ms. Souza’s newsletter, what is in question is “the process of administering the election.” The many items requested from Kootenai County Clerk Dan English, including poll books, absentee ballot requests, and absentee ballots, might be legally available to Mr. Brannon had he filed an election contest, but it is our position that the items are not legally available based on the action filed. Even if Mr. Brannon had filed a contest to the legality or illegality of votes cast in the election, Idaho law carefully limits how ballots and poll books are to be handled. Idaho Code Sections 34-2018 and 34-2019 require that in such a lawsuit the poll books and ballots are to be turned over to the judge handling the case for review in open court with the parties to the lawsuit. I understand the Ada County case described in Ms. Souza’s newsletter was filed as a primary election contest. Mr. Kelso, who represents Mr. Brannon, also represented the plaintiff in that case, and so I’m sure he knows how to file such a contest. The method described by Ms. Souza to allow the parties to observe the materials may have been ordered by the judge and agreed to by the parties to allow the parties to review materials while still complying with Idaho law. (emphasis added) However, because Mr. Brannon’s lawsuit is not an election contest, and his discovery request does not set forth a process for review of the materials that complies with Idaho law, we will object to the request until it complies with Idaho law.
What a weak argument. The prosecuter needs to get his head out of the sand.
03/03/10 Update: Provided by Mary Souza at OpenCDA.
Barry was wrong. County attorney John (“witch hunt”) Cafferty was also wrong. The judge said today, in court, that the motion filed by the challengers was brought forward under BOTH Title 50 and 34 of state law. And Mr. Cafferty publicly apologized for his poorly worded “witch hunt” comments and admitted that he was mistaken about the basis for the motion.
It didn’t matter, though
Recent Comments