Judicial Decisions - II (2004; 2006 Bilbray/Busby; 2006 Nevada HD2)

 

Bilbray/Busby, HD50, CA, Special Election, June 2006

County sued over handling of primary:

www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/08/01/news/top_stories/5_02_497_31_06.txt

 

Lawsuit asks court to order recount of Bilbray-Busby race

 

By: DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer

 

SAN DIEGO ---- A pair of voters filed suit in San Diego Superior Court on Monday, declaring that the June 6 primary was conducted illegally and demanding that election officials recount the 158,000 ballots cast in the congressional race that pitted Republican Brian Bilbray against Democrat Francine Busby.

 

 

The contest was held to pick a temporary replacement ---- through the remainder of this year ---- for now-imprisoned Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the former representative who pleaded guilty in late November to taking more than $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for steering tens of millions in government contracts to local firms.

 

Bilbray received nearly half the votes, while Busby garnered 45 percent. On June 13, Bilbray was sworn into office as the new representative for the 50th Congressional District.

 

Filed on behalf of voters Barbara Gail Jacobson of San Diego and Lillian M. Ritt of Rancho Santa Fe, both of whom live in the district, the lawsuit maintains that the results cannot be trusted because poll workers took voting machines home with them before election day in violation of state guidelines.

 

 

 

Court told votes don't have to be counted, certified

Miriam Raftery

Published: Monday August 28, 2006

www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Hearing_in_California_on_whether_Congress_0828.html

 

San Diego, CA -- A motion to dismiss a congressional election challenge in California took on national implications last week when defense attorneys argued that no court has jurisdiction to intervene in an election after Congress has sworn in a member, RAW STORY has learned.

 

Superior Court Judge Yuri Hofmann heard arguments Friday on a motion to dismiss the election challenge lawsuit filed by voters seeking a full hand recount in California’s 50th Congressional district.

 

Paul Lehto, a nationally prominent election law attorney representing two voters who filed the suit, called the motion an “invitation to the Court to ratify a seizure of power” that amounts to “invading the sovereignty of a state.”

 

 

 

North County Times, Judge throws out 50th District election lawsuit

www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/08/30/news/top_stories/7_05_458_29_06.txt

 

By: WILLIAM FINN BENNETT - Staff Writer

 

SAN DIEGO ---- The results of the 50th Congressional District special election runoff are a federal issue, not a state one, a Superior Court judge said Tuesday afternoon in dismissing a lawsuit that would have forced the county registrar of voters office to recount the ballots from the June election.

 

Just a few days after the election, the California secretary of state's office notified the office of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., that it was OK to seat (Brian) Bilbray, based on an unofficial count showing Bilbray with a lead of about 5,000 votes over Democrat Francine Busby.

 

Hastert then swore in Bilbray as the new congressman, despite the fact that the election results had yet to be certified.

 

During the brief hearing, Judge (Yuri)  Hofmann said the matter is one the U.S. House, not the state, must now address.

 

Editors Note:  Judge Hoffman cited Article 1, Section 5 [1] of the U.S. Constitution: “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members…

  

Appeal Filed in Bilbray Election Challenge

Election Nullification American Style: Speaker Hastert’s Swearing In At Issue

http://electiondefensealliance.org/2006/10/appeal_filed_in_bilbray_election_challenge

by Michael Collins, Special for “Scoop” Independent News

Washington, DC, Friday, 6 October 2006, 12:18 pm

 

Attorneys Paul Lehto and Kenneth Simpkins just entered an appeal to a California Superior Court decision that prematurely ended an election contest in California’s 50th Congressional District. Just seven days after the election, Speaker Dennis Hastert swore in Brian Bilbray on the House Floor on June 13, 2006. Hastert claimed that Bilbray was the rightful winner of the close election based on a communication he received from the office of California’s Republican Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson.

 

At the time of Hastert’s induction there were charges of major election problems and questions raised about the security of voting equipment. In addition, the election had not yet been “certified” by the Registrar of San Diego County. Certification did not take place until the end of June. Hastert claimed, via Bilbray's legal filings, that Bilbray was the rightful winner of the

close election and that state courts had no power whatsoever to even look into the matter.

 

Citizens Barbara Gail Jacobson and Lillian Ritt sued now Congressman Brian P. Bilbray and San Diego Registrar Mikel Haas to achieve a recount and close examination of the election. The case centered on secret vote counting by the Registrar, the dispersal of voting machines to the homes of poll workers well in advance of the election (and without supervision), and irregularities like failure to allocate 50% of the ballots cast to appropriate precincts. Key Constitutional issues were raised concerning the right of states and localities to conduct and judge elections. The letter that the Speaker apparently relied on indicated that there were 68,500 uncounted ballots, and that certification would have to be transmitted later "as required by law."

 

Judge Yuri Hoffman dismissed the case after hearing several days of evidence and argument. He cited the ultimate authority the U.S. House of Representatives to rule on the selection of its own members. Thus, Hoffman reasoned, when Speaker Hastert swore in Bilbray just seven days after the election amidst intense controversy, that induction ended any further appeal of the election outcome by state and local officials. Attorney Lehto was quick to note at the time, “The election nullification is out in the open, it is intentional, it is signed by their lawyers, and it can't be denied.” One activist pondered, “What if they’d found pictures of election workers stuffing the ballot boxes or manually changing totals after Hastert’s little ceremony?”

 

Election law attorney Paul R. Lehto commented:

 

This concerns the constitutionality of House Speaker Dennis Hastert's action to swear in Republican Brian Bilbray to Congress only 7 days after the election. A minimum of 12,500 ballots were still uncounted, the race was reported as only approximately 4,000 votes apart, and certification would not take place for more than two weeks. Despite these facts, the defendants argued that this premature swearing in deprived the state courts and everyone else of all power or jurisdiction to look into the election, an "exclusive jurisdiction" instead vesting in the House of Representatives alone.

 

 

The Next Katharine Harris?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_ezekiel_061013_the_next_katharine_h.htm

Give Steny Hoyer some credit. The Democratic Whip in the House is looking past any October surprise to the post-election period when Republicans may employ a whole range of strategies to hold on to their House majority regardless of the voters' verdict on November 8.

 

Hoyer recently wrote a letter to Republican Vernon Ehlers, chairman of the usually obscure House Administration Committee, voicing concerns about the possibility of contested House elections:

 

At least one Democrat has learned the lesson of Bush v. Gore: losing an election doesn't stop this band of Republicans from trying to take the office anyway.

 

In this case, it's not the Oval Office but the Speaker of the House that will be the prize, and if Hoyer and the political pundits are right, whether the House is controlled by Republicans or Democrats after January 3 is likely to turn on a few House contests with close outcomes.

 

Here's how it works. Each state is responsible for certifying the Congressional winners to the U. S. House of Representatives. In many cases, the ultimate state authority will be a Secretary of State, the office that Katharine Harris held in Florida in 2000. Depending on a particular state's law, a Governor, state courts or a state legislature may have a role as well.

 

But that's where the similarity to the 2000 Presidential election nightmare ends. Article I of the U. S. Constitution provides that Congress itself--not the federal courts--will have ultimate authority to determine who is qualified to sit as a Representative. Dozens of House elections have been contested through the past two centuries, and in each case, it was the House itself that decided the outcome, sometimes reversing the decision of state authorities as happened in 1985 when Democrat Frank McCloskey was awarded the Indiana 8th District seat over Republican Rick McIntyre who had been certified as the winner by Indiana.

 

NEVADA HD 2, GOP PRIMARY, AUGUST, 2006

 

Editors Note: Problems in the August 16 primary  prompted Republican congressional primary loser, Sharron Angle, to challenge the election.  In the primary against Republican Chuck Heller (currenently the NV SOS) for the 2nd Congressional seat being vacated by Jim Gibbons, Angle lost by less than 430 votes, and sought a new election through the courts.  The courts dismissed her suit citing lack of jurisdiction.  Angle did not further pursue a challenge to the election

 

Angle seeks new GOP primary for Nevada congressional seat

www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/aug/29/082910245.html

August 29, 2006

By SANDRA CHEREB

ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

RENO, Nev. (AP) - Assemblywoman Sharron Angle went to court Tuesday seeking a new Republican primary election, bucking pressure from a pair of high-ranking GOP leaders to end her contest against Dean Heller for Nevada's 2nd District congressional seat.

 

Angle lost to Heller by 421 votes in the Aug. 15 primary.

 

Though the Angle camp initially said the challenge would be filed in Washoe County, lawyers said Tuesday it would be filed in Carson City instead.

 

The "statement of contest" names Heller - currently Nevada's secretary of state - as the defendant, and cites 17 arguments, including malfeasance on the part of election officials, in support of a new election.

 

Most involve Election Day polling problems in the Reno area.

 

Washoe County Voter Registrar has said about 100 workers were late or didn't show up that day, causing some voters to leave without casting a ballot.

 

Angle and attorney Jonathan Hansen said also they've received allegations of voting improprieties in Lyon County, though they didn't provide specifics.

 

The filing further asserts that absentee ballots were mailed late, and people who then tried to vote in person were turned away. It also alleges some Republicans were given Democratic ballots and voted in the wrong primary.

 

"The alleged grounds for this challenge show that numerous voters have been disenfranchised by acts of malfeasance," the legal filing said. "The exact number of voters that were disenfranchised cannot be known."

 

The sprawling 2nd Congressional District covers portions of all 17 Nevada counties.

 

 

Angle loses appeal for new election

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20060902/ELECTIONS/109020079

 

Geoff dornan

Appeal Capitol Bureau, gdornan@nevadaappeal.com

September 2, 2006

 

Sharron Angle on Friday lost her call for a new election. Immediately after the ruling, she said there will be no appeal and she will endorse and work for Dean Heller in his race for Nevada's second congressional district.

 

After a day-long hearing into allegations of malfeasance by Washoe Voter Registrar Dan Burk and his staff, Carson District Judge Bill Maddox ruled not only do the U.S. Constitution and Nevada law bar him from deciding a challenge of any race for the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives but that Angle's lawyer Joel Hansen failed to prove the errors in Washoe County were numerous and serious enough to warrant nullifying the vote.

 

He also ordered Angle's side to pay Heller's legal costs in defending the case.

 

Citing Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the 30-year-old Laxalt v. Cannon opinion from the Nevada Supreme Court and NRS 293.407, Maddox said, "This court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case."

 

All three of those state that only the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives can decide contested elections involving their membership.

 

Maddox heard testimony in the case primarily to put all Angle's claims in the record but said even if he had jurisdiction over the issue, they failed to prove those allegations.

 

Malfeasance, he said "is a wrongful or unlawful act according to Black's Law Dictionary. It is not an omission of an act. It is the commission of an act."

 

 

 

 

Heller’s Win in Nevada 2 GOP Primary becomes Official

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20060905/pl_cq_politics/hellerswininnevada2gopprimarybecomesofficial

 

Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller is now the official winner of the tightly contested Aug. 15 Republican primary for his state’s open2nd Congressional District seat — following a court ruling Friday that rejected an attempt by his closest competitor,state Assemblywoman Sen. Sharron Angle, to have the outcome of the primary vacated and a new election called.

 

Angle conceded the contest after the court ruling and endorsed Heller for what appears a competitive contest with Democratic nominee Jill Derby, a state university regent, for the seat that five-term Republican Rep. Jim Gibbons left open to run for governor.

 

Because of the district court ruling and Angle’s decision not to appeal it, Heller’s victory stands, by a razor-thin margin of 428 votes. A total of about 69,000 votes were cast in the five-candidate Republican contest, in which former state Rep. Dawn Gibbons — the congressman’s wife - ran third.

 

 

In her petition to the court and at the hearing Friday, Angle argued that poll workers disenfranchised voters by failing to open polling stations on time, among other problems, in Washoe County, part of which Angle represented in the state Assembly for four terms. The county, which includes Reno, is by far the district’s most populous jurisdiction.

 

While calling for a recount is the most common request in cases in which ballot irregularities are alleged, Angle went further, requesting that the Aug. 15 results be thrown out and the primary held over again.

 

But District Judge Bill Maddox rejected Angle’s request on grounds that the state court lacks jurisdiction in congressional elections, the Associated Press reported. According to Maddox, only the U.S. House of Representatives has standing to call for a new election.

 

 

OPINION

Vote Trust USA, John Gideon

Nevada: The Constitution As A Weapon Against Democracy

 www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1750&ltemid=113

 

 

…The judge threw out the case, not on a finding that the practices were not illegal but on a constitutional basis. The judge found that he had no jurisdiction, in part, according to Article 1, Section 5 of the US Constitution.

 

The pertinent part of Article 1, Section 5 says: "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members,........". Note the phrase "of its own members".

 

…in Nevada we have two citizens running in the GOP Congressional primary. Neither of them is a member of congress now. So how, and why, did Article 1, Section 5 of the US Constitution come into play? How can anyone read the Constitution and decide that the people's votes don't matter, the Legislative Branch will make the decision for us?

 

Could these court rulings simply be to set precedents? Could it be the move of the GOP using activist judges who are clearly legislating from the bench in order to set a precedent to be used in November? Is this all the portent of things to come in November where election challenges for the House of Representatives will go to the courts and be decided based on precedent rulings from California and Nevada and someone's incorrect reading of what is clear English?