ELECTION NULLIFICATION; "Once the House ... SELECTS a candidate..."

[Land Shark]

<http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/08/30/news/top_stories/7_05_458_29_06.txt>

Judge throws out 50th District election lawsuit

By: WILLIAM FINN BENNETT - Staff Writer

{snip}
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 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 Hofmann said the matter is one the U.S. House, not the state, must now address. "Once the House asserts exclusive jurisdiction and selects a candidate, the court no longer has jurisdiction," Hofmann said.

In a brief phone interview Tuesday, Busby said that she was not aware of the federal statute that would have allowed her to file a protest with the House of Representatives. But the judge's decision was wrong, she said. "It's outrageous that this judge just said the state of California doesn't have jurisdiction over our own elections, over this election," Busby said. "What happened today should be of concern to all voters."

{snip}
Jacobson said that too much is at stake to stop fighting the use of machines such as the ones used in San Diego County and many jurisdictions across the nation. "I look at this as an American issue, something that will benefit all people and all parties," said Jacobson, a registered Democrat.

--------------------------------

COMMENT:
This is local San Diego coverage. It's interesting that the writer allows the critique of the judge's ruling, in which the judge is quoted as specifically saying the candidate was "selected" by the House, to come from Francine Busby!

"What happened today should be of concern to all voters." Yes, indeed.

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE?

Step One: Take Zogby 92% support for public involvement in vote counting and right to information on vote counting. Take also, belief in democracy and its nature as meaning all political power originates in the people.

Step Two: Take CA 50 realities of outright election termination, election nullification, denial of information regarding elections, and assertions of absolute power.

Step Three: Compare and contrast above two items.

Step Four: Realize that there is now, unlike before, very clearcut and open contrasts.

Isn't this what is known as a winning political issue, in the long run?

It seems the only way to really beat the 92% is to help them continually and constantly FORGET that they are the 92%, or to get them to move away from the central core of election rights to watch, rights to know, and rights to supervise elections.

In the legislative branch voting records have to be published SO THE PEOPLE CAN JUDGE their representatives.

In the judicial branch, there are juries SO THE PEOPLE CAN JUDGE guilt and innocence and liability.

In the executive branch which runs elections (concerning voting, the right that protects all other rights) the people ARE NO LONGER NEEDED????

Or, perhaps the prior paragraph is really supposed to end "there is public supervision of vote counting, SO THE PEOPLE CAN JUDGE THE FAIRNESS of elections."

[grasswire]

1. so Judge Hofman is one of those activist judges...

...who legislate from the bench? Eh?

[aquart]

2. What's his background?

[cascadiance]

4. Yeah, how long ago did "Yuri" leave the Soviet Union?

It seems that mentality is reflected in this ruling...

[rumpel]

19. Just a few sampling of rulings:

available on a google search term "yuri hofmann"

1) August 01, 2004

Calif. Judge orders disabled patron to pay nearly $30,000 to city in library cat case

Judge orders man to cover city's legal fees in library cat case

Last modified Saturday, July 31, 2004 10:29 PM PDT By: BEN FRUMIN - Staff Writer, North County Times
ESCONDIDO ---- A disabled man has been ordered to pay nearly $30,000 in attorneys' fees incurred by the city of Escondido defending a lawsuit stemming from the attack nearly four years ago on his assistance dog by a cat living in the city library, officials said Saturday.

"The case was frustrating for our office from the beginning," Senior Deputy City Attorney Steve Nelson said Saturday. "We put a lot of time and energy into it."

Nelson said Superior Court Judge Yuri Hofmann on Friday ordered Richard Ramon "Rik" Espinosa to pay the city $29,362.50 ---- 25 percent less than the city's request for $225 per hour for 174 billable hours.

http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/disability_access/index.html

2) A series of legal battles

The development is the latest in a case that has pitted the city and Poway Royal residents against each other since late 2004, when city officials announced their intention to sell the park.

In doing so, they were following a recommendation from the Poway Housing Commission, which recommended the city divest itself of several low-income communities.

Poway bought the properties in the late 1980s and early 1990s to keep their rents affordable to the people who live in the developments. The city successfully transferred ownership of three of the properties -- Haley Ranch Estates, Poinsettia Family Mobile Home Park and Poinsettia Senior Mobile Home Park -- to nonprofit organizations that continue to run them as affordable housing.

The decision to do the same with Poway Royal angered many of its residents, who own their mobile homes but rent the spaces on which they sit. The residents lobbied for a chance to buy the property themselves.

Their $29.9 million offer was one of four purchase proposals the city considered. A panel of volunteers reviewed the offers before recommending the park be sold to Newport Beach-based nonprofit Millennium Housing.

Wakeland moved to the top of the recommendation list after Millennium Housing asked to be dropped.

The Poway Royal Mobilehome Owners Association filed its lawsuit against the city in June 2005.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Yuri Hofmann dismissed the lawsuit earlier this year, saying the city had no obligation to sell Poway Royal to its residents. He also granted Poway's request that the court validate the pending sale and ordered the association to pay the city at least $40,000 in legal fees.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/08/22/news/inland/poway/22_19_138_21_06.txt

3) California Supreme Court Affirms SDCERA’s Decision

The California Supreme Court has denied the petition for review filed in the Bonner vs. Board of Retirement case, upholding a decision handed down in May from the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Click the Bonner vs. Board of Retirement August ruling press release to learn further details about the ruling. (Posted August 2006)

http://www.sdcera.org/communications/news_events/news_events_body.htm

[skids]

3. Nice analogy to congressional voting records.

Perhaps a hoax is in order, saying BushCo plans to discontinue them, then saying, no but seriously, did you know that they've discontinued elections?

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Did the judge, or the article, mention this little...

tidbit from Article One of the Constitution":


"Section 5

Clause 1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

Congress has the right to "seat its own members" but I don't know just how this has played out in courtrooms throughout history. In this courtroom, however, it seems the judge is following the Constitution.

Whether we might like it or not.

[Febble]

6. It strikes me

that the problem is the swearing in before certification, not who has jurisdiction over that member's seat once the member is sworn.

That's why our returning officers don't announce the results until the count is complete and all candidates are happy it. Once the candidate is seated, it is too late. As it should be.

It's unbelievable how slow you guys are at counting ballots!

[livvy]

8. I agree with you.

Swearing someone in before certification is just plain wrong. Until all the votes are counted to the satisfaction of the candidates and the voters, no candidate should be seated.
The way this was done, Bilbray truly was selected.
The judge, by not addressing this issue, lowered the green flag. I think I understand his ruling on the jurisdictional issue, but Congress should not seat anyone until the election is concluded to the satisfaction of the State.

[Febble]

12. That's the right frame, I think:

"Congress should not seat anyone until the election is concluded to the satisfaction of the State."

Which then nicely ushers in the issue of audits.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Maybe not, but...

the Constitution gives Congress the right to seat its own members regardless of the election results. Sad, but true-- originally we weren't even allowed to elect our own Senators. A number of key players at the Constitutional Convention really didn't trust the public to make the right choices.

Apparently, under Federal law the losers have 30 days to protest the seating and force the House to order a recount. No one did this, so the judge had no choice but to accept the House decision to seat Bilbray. After all, technically the state did certify Bilbray even though there was a case for a recount. That's when it was taken out of state hands.

It might suck, but it's the way things were planned over 200 years ago.

[JimDandy]

17. As of this judge's ruling,

the slower the counting, the better off our democracy will be. It seems we only get one shot at it now. Since an unofficial count is all that's needed, we must get it right the first time. All states now need to enact laws stating that NO pronouncement of a winner may be announced until every single last ballot has been counted -- that means by no one -- not the RoV, not the SoS, and not the candidates, which also means no candidate may concede. Make it a felony punished by a hefty fine and jail time -- and punishment must be mandatory and can't be reduced by a judge. It's only our democracy at stake here. Can you tell I'm angry?

[Land Shark]

18. it's always been true that we've GOT TO GET THE 1st COUNT right

This case just makes it extraordinarily clear that this is the case. The 1% audit, and the paper trail all USELESS in a case where the election has indicia of being stolen, because look at how hard they will fight to keep you away from the evidence! They will short circuit the process too and remove jurisdiction and terminate the election process. Whatever audits and so forth one might want need to be prior to announcement of the first vote totals.

[JimDandy]

20. I hope we'll be given time to explain this case

tomorrow night at Salt Lake City's showing of the film "Electile Dysfunction." I'm on a panel, with Bruce Funk, that will be taking questions from the audience after the film is shown. That film will need updating now to highlight this previously unrealized dysfunctional situation.

CA-50 will also be a great case to present to our Legislature's Government Operations Committee. It's now the best example of what can happen when election-related records are allowed to be withheld from the public and especially from candidates. We'll also be pushing for a bill that requires officials to produce election-related records within two business days of a request and assesses fines for each day an official withholds public records past the due date of a records request.

[BeFree]

21. That is a solution

Make sure our candidates do not give up because of the machine count.

Verify before conceeding.

If only......

But first we must get them to admit that the machine counts are not to be taken as the truth. We must get them to admit that the machines are not perfect, that the machines may be mistaken.

Sounds simple, eh? But I tell ya, I am not seeing a whole lot of progress on that front. The candidates that I have talked to get all glassy eyed when presented the proposition that the machine counts are NOT to be taken on blind faith.

To much blind faith is no good for democracy. But isn't that why we have the government we now have?

[midnight]

7. While this is not the response I was counting on .............

You have pointed out that this could be used as a winning political issue. Is this because now vs before we have a clear example of a power grab? Can't the people of San Diego ask for a recall of this Republican?

[livvy]

9. Not the outcome I was hoping for, but I see how it could be used to...

help.
Regardless of the outcome, great job, Land Shark, and thanks.

[Land Shark]

15. for those not understanding that some are happy to terminate

election processes early, and manipulate election processes, this is a clearcut example right there out in the open. It also has elements that show how readily election officials will act to deny the informational rights concerning elections supported by around 92% of the american public in the recent Zogby poll.

So yes there is a clear example of premature election termination/nullification that contrasts with one of the most widely held beliefs concerning democracy, so that gives us something clear to talk about, both on appeal and with the public generally.

[fasttense]

10. So if I get this judge's ruling correctly

If the House decides to swear in a candidate that did not win the election it is OK?

They could just swear in anyone they wanted without a vote and it is a ok by this judge? Sounds fishy to me.

[Land Shark]

16. It's unclear in the judge's decision how such a thing could be stopped

absolute or exclusive means absolute or exclusive....

[formercia]

11. I think it's their plan

to gain an absolute majority and kill the Constitution once and for all.

[dusty64]

13. Its hard to be surprised

by anything these days but this does. Hopefully this can be brought to a higher and hopefully smarter court.

[drm604]

22. That's what I've been wondering.

Can't this be taken to the state's supreme court?

[FogerRox]

23. thanks for all you do, Paul. KNR