San Diego Union-Tribune's Miraculous Fair Coverage of CA 50 court hearing!

[Land Shark]

(did not find this on the www.signonsandiego.com website, but I did find it on lexisnexis and in the city version of the paper)

The San Diego Union Tribune is well known for right-leaning coverage, but actually printed a reasonable article in Saturday's paper on the oral arguments as to the Constitutionality of the Election Nullification arguments presented by the Defendants Brian Bilbray and Registrar Mikel Haas. See http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3325

After several paragraphs of reasonable intro to Friday's court hearing, explaining that the judge will rule Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. on whether he has jurisdiction over a lawsuit seeking a recount in the June 6 special election, the San Diego Union Tribune also stated accurately that "attorneys for Bilbray and County Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas told Superior Court Judge Yuri Hoffman today that he had no jurisdiction to rule on the lawsuit because the House of Representatives voted unanimously for Bilbray to take his oath of office on June 13."

Several paragraphs of the ensuing article are reprinted below the line, and seem to represent fair coverage (by the MSM) of some of the back and forth at oral arguments Friday. It also adds a bit of new information, apparently provided to the media by the defendants outside the hearing.

NEW INFO PROVIDED TO MEDIA ONLY REGARDING FACTS OF THIS CASE: Putting together the kpete thread reply I posted containing the nctimes.com article <http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/08/26/news/top_stories/21_14_458_25_06.txt> as well as this SD Union-Tribune article's new claims, the defendants are arguing in their defense that there have been a couple other politicians apparently sworn in quickly (one Dem, one Rep) and prior to certification, and they are also claiming that Republican SOS McPherson indicated that it appeared that Bilbray would be certified a few weeks later.

The above claims miss the main point. Even assuming these factual claims are true, it is not so much the quick swearing in that is the issue but the SUBSEQUENT CLAIM THAT THE COURT IS POWERLESS TO REVIEW OR QUESTION IT OR TO ORDER A RECOUNT that is the truly outrageous factor.

That means that the defendants specifically believe that when they swore in Bilbray on June 13th unilaterally, they did so with absolute unreviewable power. This is not an argument on my part, it is THEIR POSITION, signed by their lawyers after presumably thinking about it. That's why I say that they specifically intended to terminate the elections process, before all the votes like the provisional votes were counted, before the required manual audit and prior to official certification.

BEGIN QUOTED PARAGRAPHS
================

Judge Mulls Decision On Challenge to Bilbray Election

August 26, 2006 San Diego Union Tribune

{snip)

Attorneys for Bilbray and Haas argued that Hoffman had no jurisdiction. "An election contest can't be heard by this court," said Bilbray's attorney, David A. King. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Paul Lehto, disagreed, saying the oath was given to Bilbray even before Haas certified the election results in late July, and that the specific intent of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives was to render the state court powerless.

(snip involving comparison of two other politicians apparently sworn in quickly, one Dem, one Rep)

Lehto said the House action was an attempt to "terminate the election process before it's over." "There can be nothing more important than the integrity of the elections," Lehto said. Lehto asked Hoffman to "uphold the truth-seeking function of the election process," the state and federal constitution and the checks and balances principle of judicial review.

Haas' attorney, James Chapin, also said the plaintiffs initially requested a recount but then decided against it. "The truth is available," Chapin said. "They declined to pursue it." {However}, The lawsuit claims that when the plaintiffs sought a recount, Haas said it would cost them $150,000, which is why they did not pursue the matter.

(snip)

[stellanoir]

1. Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Rec'd and great work as ever. Maybe keep it up.

[Land Shark]

9. CORRECTION, this was the City News Service of

the City News Service in san diego, but not the city news service of the San Diego Union Tribune, as I had thought. The actual coverage of the UT is thus not very thorough or fair, it was Kelly Wheeler of the City News SErvice that did such a great Job.

[bleever]

2. "...the House of Representatives voted unanimously for Bilbray to take his

oath of office on June 13."

Is this true?

Also, while Congress has sole jurisdiction over the qualifications of its members, isn't the electoral process at the local level a separate matter from "qualifications"? I think they're conflating two separate issues here.

[Land Shark]

3. See Cong record; unanimous consent is different than voting unanimously

but you'll have to check on the vote part for yourself. The key part, again, is the claim of the lack of power for anyone to question the action, and the specific intent of the swearing in to result in the removal of that power.

from the congressional record for June 13, 2006, unofficial results faxed from the CA SOS were utilized:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/digest2006/d13JN061.txt

Page H3798
Oath of Office--Fiftieth Congressional District of California:
Representative-elect Brian P. Bilbray presented himself in the well of
the House and was administered the Oath of Office by the Speaker.
Earlier the Clerk of the House transmitted a facsimile copy of the
unofficial returns of the Special Election held on June 6, 2006 from
Ms. Susan Lapsley, Assistant Secretary of State for Elections,
California Secretary of State Office, indicating that the Honorable
Brian P. Bilbray was elected Representative in Congress for the
Fiftieth Congressional District of California.

[bleever]

4. Yes. CR mentions no vote. "Unanimous consent" means that

no objections were raised. Neither was a true motion for unanimous consent made in the House. This was a peremptory act by the Speaker.

[rumpel]

5. "unofficial returns"

is unofficial.

How can the speaker even administer an oath of office based on admittedly "unofficial returns".

[Land Shark]

6. I should note that I just now bought a SD Union-Tribune print edition

(I had previously found the full version via a newsservice on the web) and the print version of the article has a lot of edits, with all of the best quotes edited out. So, I guess I need to modify the title of this to acknowledge that the article as written was miraculously fair, the article as printed was heavily edited. And, I'll have to look for it on the website for the paper, strange I couldn't find ANY article on the website for the paper. Maybe I missed it?

[Wilms]

7. This may be the article, LS.

Bilbray's victory in election challenged

By Philip J. LaVelle

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

August 26, 2006

Lawyers for Rep. Brian Bilbray and county Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas told a judge yesterday that it would be unconstitutional for the judge to consider a lawsuit seeking to void Bilbray's election.

“Courts have no jurisdiction” over election challenges involving members of Congress, county lawyer James Chapin told Superior Court Judge Yuri Hofmann.

Chapin and Bilbray lawyer David King argued that the Constitution allows only the House of Representatives to undertake such actions.

snip

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060826-9999-7m26elect.html

[Land Shark]

8. That would be it. You should see the huge difference

between this article and the one on lexisnexis from city news service. But, unlike the prior statement and the title of this thread, this was NOT the Union Tribune, it only looked like/I thought it was. It was the City News service and since the byline said san diego on it, i assumed it was the city news service of the san diego UT. My mistake. There was not, after all, very fair coverage from the UT.

[Kurovski]

10. K&R

Eggs-s-s-s-elent!

[Liberty Belle]

11. The print version in the paper also makes no mention that

electronic voting machines can be hacked or rigged.

[autorank]

12. Clean elections should be at the top of everyones' list.

What is the hesitation on the part of any media outlet, corporate or not? It's time to make sure that the manifest will of the people is realized...paper ballots, hand counted plus intense observation of the process by members of the public, even viceo coverate..why not.

K&R Keep up the excellent work.

[mod mom]

14. Top of mine. I can't believe everyone except the thieves wouldn't be

behind this-especially since we are living the consequences of stolen elections.

[rumpel]

13. for Tuesday, we need at least the LA Times

to be there.

I have to check who writes on these issues there - unless someone knows it off hand...

Is the court open for live camera feed? Did any station request?