Fundraisers?!
In regards to historical markers, FineWine wrote: "Unless we can acquire a 100% grant to pay for the markers or have fund raisers."
While I agree that we should go after grant money where ever and whenever possible, I have to question the fundraisers. Aren't sales taxes, etc the government version of a fundraiser. Or did you think we should have bake sales?
I'm just not sure it is quite above board for our government to be holding fundraisers. (Of course, some folks might find a trivia night to pay for programs a little more palatable than taxes, but isn't it all a wash?!)
While I agree that we should go after grant money where ever and whenever possible, I have to question the fundraisers. Aren't sales taxes, etc the government version of a fundraiser. Or did you think we should have bake sales?
I'm just not sure it is quite above board for our government to be holding fundraisers. (Of course, some folks might find a trivia night to pay for programs a little more palatable than taxes, but isn't it all a wash?!)
posted by suzyjax at 5:40 AM
10 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
May 23, 2007
Court challenge may be in the works
Following up on the story in today's Denver Post: I'm hearing that JoAnn Phillips' campaign will challenge Paul Lopez's eligibility in district court. If this is true, Phillips is doing the right thing. After putting concerns about Lopez's residency into the public record last night, her campaign needs to follow through as a matter of integrity.
All the evidence I've seen indicates that the Denver Election Commission staff erred in putting Lopez on the ballot. Earlier this week I spoke to one commissioner who had serious doubts about Lopez's eligibility. Her hands were tied, however, because the May 1 vote had already been certified. She had not been presented with facts about Lopez until recently. She hastened to point out that it is not the fault of the election commission if Lopez misled them about his eligibility.
A ruling in district court would settle the matter either way. It would be bad for District 3 and Paul Lopez if he were to win the election without a clear ruling on his residency. For his entire term he would have to battle the perception that he fibbed his way onto the ballot.
JoAnn Phillips is the underdog in the District 3 race, and some may argue that she's just throwing mud at Lopez. In my opinion, Phillips is standing up for District 3 by insisting that the city follow its own rules with regard to candidate eligibility as stated in the city charter.
Here's the clip from last night's meeting of the election commission:
Comments
It is disappointing that some blogs (not yours) have reduced the very important question of residency to a personal candidate debate.
This matter is not about any particular candidate, it is about the qualifications of ANY candidate. Kudo’s to the candidates that had the COURAGE to ask for enforcement of the law. They get my vote!
There are few criteria that must be met in order to run for elected office. One of the three criteria is residency.
I wonder how many very experienced candidates did not run because they did not meet the residency qualifications.
I know of at least one candidate that had not lived in the district for the required amount of time but could have run if the residency rule was waived. That candidate should be allowed the opportunity to run if the election commission decided that residency was not important.
The gross incompetence of the Elected Officers of the Denver Election Commission to uphold the requirements to run for office is a tragedy. No surprise there… Commissioners Susan Rogers and Sandy Adams have been an embarrassment for 4 years and through their incompentence were wholly responsible for the eradication of the important Election Commission check and balance in our governmental process.
Elected Officials are sworn to uphold the law. Our Election Commissioners have over and over again failed miserably. A candidate that continues to run under false pretenses also is an embarrassment.
The facts are clear and Lopez should drop out. Lopez can run for elected office when he has met the residency requirements for the district, or he can run at-large.
How could district residents ever trust a Councilmember that was elected under such a cloud? A Councilmember that swears to uphold the law but flagrantly disregarded the law and insists the law doesn't apply to them?
Honesty, credibility and trust is a huge part of the job. Based on court documents and the information supplied by the Denver Police Department, there is no way anyone should trust what Lopez says.
I hope the District Court challenge is made as certainly the requirements for elected office will be upheld by the Court. From what I’ve read – the case is solid and Lopez will be
disqualified.
Posted by: enough already | May 23, 2007 at 08:41 PM
If Lopez is declared ineligible, wouldn't that void the original election? And all the other candidates could jump back into the race for a new election? If I finished 3rd, 4th, etc., I would demand this. Phillips shouldn't waltz into office as a result of a faulty election.
Posted by: Ramifications? | May 24, 2007 at 12:30 PM
When the District Court rules that Lopez was ineligible to run then I believe the scenario would be:
The May 1 election will be thrown out. The June 5 election will not be tabulated. A vacancy will be declared in the district. A special election will be scheduled to fill the District 3 vacancy. A special election can be held with a winner declared by plurality, no run-off election would occur.
Of course Lopez could run in the special election if he then met the residency requirement.
Some may argue that the city shouldn't go to the expense to correct this error. I would argue that following the law is what should be done, even if it costs the estimated $30,000 to hold the vacancy election.
The city should not allow a precedent to be set that allows candidates to run that don't meet the requirements to run.
___________________________________
May 24, 2007
The damning voter registration docs
The Denver Election Commission just responded (thank you!) to my open records request pertaining to Paul Lopez's voter registration. This pdf indicates a sworn affirmation of residency by Lopez. He signed off on a document telling the DEC that he moved from District 2 to District 3 on September 1, 2006. That would make him ineligible to run for the District 3 council seat he now seeks. Golly.
un. 10, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
Raising residency questions
Boggs charges put candidates on notice
By BRIAN HAYNES
REVIEW-JOURNAL
When Gov. John Sparks ran Nevada a century ago, state law required that he live in Carson City. But no one seemed to mind that "Honest John" regularly commuted by train between the capital city and his ranch near Reno.
Times have changed. At the least, modern-day candidates who appear to skirt political residency requirements can be sure their opponents will make it a campaign issue. Some candidates will face court challenges. Others, such as former Clark County Commissioner Lynette Boggs, will face criminal charges.
Boggs last week was charged with four felonies, accused of lying on campaign paperwork.
Two charges center on whether she lived at a house inside her southwest valley district. Authorities contend she lived outside the district and created a paper trail to cover up the arrangement.
University of Nevada, Reno political science professor Eric Herzik shakes his head when he thinks of all the political candidates who ignore residency laws when they should be living among their constituents.
"You're not some sort of hired gun. You're supposed to be for the people and by the people," he said. "It's basic government, which sometimes gets lost in the shuffle of American politics."
Although federal candidates don't have to live in the district they represent, state, county and local candidates are required to live in their districts for 30 days before the filing deadline.
But the law is vague when defining the residency requirement, saying candidates must actually, not constructively, live in their districts.
Figuring out what that means falls to the judges who hear the residency challenges raised by political opponents or authorities.
One of those challenges was raised last year by the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and Culinary Local 226, who filed a lawsuit to remove Boggs, a Republican, from the ballot in the commission's District F race.
The two labor unions spearheaded the Boggs investigation by hiring a private investigator who captured video footage of the commissioner in her bathrobe picking up the newspaper at the house outside her district.
The lawsuit ended up being moot, however, when Boggs lost the election.
The unions also filed a complaint in September with the secretary of state's office claiming she had illegally used campaign funds. The investigation of that complaint resulted in charges being filed last week.
Judges in other cases have thrown candidates off the ballot because they didn't live where they claimed to.
In a 2002 case filed against Clark County Commission candidate Michael Williams, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled a candidate's "home is where your cat lives" in keeping Williams off the ballot in his bid to unseat Myrna Williams.
The court found Michael Williams, a Democrat, had a house in Henderson where his fiancée and cat lived, while he lived in an apartment.
Judges have removed other candidates from ballots in recent years, including Assembly candidate David Parks, a Democrat who ran against an incumbent with the same name, and Republican university regent candidate Mark DeStefano.
The district attorney's office investigated the DeStefano case but didn't press charges, because prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proving intent is usually the biggest hurdle to filing a criminal case, especially since it's hard enough proving where candidates live, said Matt Griffin, deputy secretary of state for elections.
"If we're not sure where they live, how can we say what their intent was?" Griffin said.
The district attorney's office has prosecuted at least one other candidate before Boggs. In 1998, Democratic Assembly candidate Judi Lynn pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for lying about where she lived.
Political observers were split on whether the Boggs case would curtail politicians' attempts to ignore residency requirements.
"I'll wait and see," said Larry Lomax, Clark County's registrar of voters and frequent ear for carpetbagging complaints.
Herzik said time would tell if the case had any lasting effect.
"You would hope that everybody looks at this, both voters and politicians, and at some point says, 'Enough,'" he said.
From historian Michael Green's perspective, the Boggs case could mean a boon for local real estate agents.
"We might be looking at 'For Sale' signs outside the homes of certain politicians who are now more concerned about this," he said.
High court rules on candidates
# As a result, one name to be left off DA's race and another added to judge's race
By Glenna DeRoy
glenna.deroy@clarionledger.com
One candidate is out of a district attorney's race and another is in a Justice Court judge's race following rulings the state Supreme Court handed down Thursday on election challenges over residency.
Wilton McNair's name should not be on the ballot for district attorney for Covington, Jasper, Simpson, and Smith counties because he does not live in the district, the court said in overturning the Democratic Executive Committee and trial court. G. David Garner, a resident of the district, had filed an objection to McNair's candidacy.
The ruling means District Attorney Eddie Bowen will not have to run a primary campaign in his re-election bid.
McNair, an assistant prosecutor for the district that includes Yazoo, Humphreys and Holmes counties, did not wish to comment on the finding. If he wants a rehearing, he must file a request by Monday since counties soon must finalize their ballots.
Bowen did not return calls for comment Thursday evening. He will face Republican challenger Daniel Christopher Jones in the November election.
McNair maintained that he resided in Covington County because "that is where he was raised, where some of his family lives, where he owns property and where he does his banking," according to court papers.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that McNair's living arrangements contradicted his position.
"We find that McNair resides at his home in Jackson where he lived seven days a week prior to the candidacy contest and still lives at least five days a week even now," Justice Chuck Easley said in writing for the court.
In the other case, the court ruled that the name of Monique Brooks Montgomery, a Justice Court judge candidate in Lowndes County, should be added to the Democratic ballot in the Aug. 7 primary. Democrats Peggy Phillips, the incumbent, and Cindy Lawrence also are on the ballot.
Montgomery, a resident of the county, does not live in the particular election subdistrict where she will run for office.
"Because the Constitution of 1890 sets the only requirements for Justice Court judges, we hold that she is not barred from qualification," Justice Oliver Diaz Jr. said in writing for the court.
Though revisions to the state Constitution place stricter residency restrictions on candidates, the court ruled that those restrictions do not apply to Justice Court judge candidates. The court said the Constitution states that further restrictions should be made only to positions that require nothing more of a candidate than a normal registered voter.
Since running for Justice Court judge requires a high school education and two years of residency in the county, the court ruled Montgomery should stay on the ballot, overturning the Democratic Executive Committee and trial court in a challenge from Montgomery.
Excerpted from the Brunswick News
Court adds twist to city race
by KEITH LAING
Voting in Brunswick's mayoral election opened as scheduled Tuesday after a federal judge rejected a disqualified candidate's attempt to stop it.
U.S. District Judge Anthony Alaimo turned down Monday a request by Elaine Brown to halt the election because the Glynn County Board of Elections had removed her from the ballot Oct. 14, when it decided unanimously she had failed to meet the one-year residency rule to be a candidate.
He did not order her to be reinstated as a candidate.
Alaimo, however, told the board of elections to tally and preserve any write-in votes that might be cast for Brown, even though the board had removed her from the ballot after it was too late for her to qualify as a write-in candidate.
Alaimo said he issued the order to tally and preserve any votes for Brown, a former president of the national Black Panther party, in order to protect the record of the election while she pursued an appeal of the elections board decision.
No matter how many write-in votes Brown receives, she cannot win the election because she is not a qualified candidate.
The winner will come from among two candidates on the ballot – Bryan Thompson, executive director of Blueprint Brunswick, and Otis Herrington, a former city commissioner – and a qualified write-in candidate – Betsy Bean, a historic preservation proponent.
I heard that this Friday they will decide on the Schneider case.
Well, I have been exceptionally busy lately, unforunately not with the examiner, but I am trying to catch up.
I did notice the mention on OC that a "good reason" for a State Audit is the Council's consideration of spending 16,000.00 on historical markers. While there is likely a reasonable debate to be had as to whether or not we need such markers I am at a loss of how a State Audit would address it.
A state audit would check to see if the bill paid from the proper account, and that is about it.
At an earlier workshop meeting Councilman Owensby said he wanted a audit because he wanted to know why they didn't pass a budget last year. This is equally ignorant.
A State audit is about making sure revenues that come in go into the proper accounts and bills paid are paid from proper accounts and that is about it.
No audit, State, Forensic or Private can tell you who politician's chose to do the things they do, be it propose a questionable budget, oppose the same, or support the purchase of unnecessary cell phones for themselves. Those are policy decisions and those decisions should be audited by the public every 2 years (at the polls).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thanks for the info Onelayer. This is the biggest story in relation to the August Mayoral election happening this week. Thanks for the timely reporting.
Sailor,
Are those the reasons these people are petitioning for a State Audit? I have to agree with you, the reasons are “equally ignorant”. However, the people signing such a petition are “equally ignorant” as are those that are spearheading such an “ignorant” project. Let them waste their time, it’s obvious they have nothing better to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home