plime.com : politics : State responds to ballot lawsuit from Boise Democrat

State responds to ballot lawsuit from Boise Democrat

Wait. What? So, a convicted felon can get onto the idaho ballot, but an actual serious citizen can't? Seriously? Wtf, Idaho? picked by muppet 2 months ago

tags idaho election disqualified disqualify ballot democrat

117

quote edit #1

comments (2)

edit history (0)

< 1 >

18	coldblad...

2 months ago

Umm, he didn't comply with election laws. So no, he can't get on the ballot.

quote #2

22	muppet

2 months ago

« coldbladed : Umm, he didn't comply with election laws. So no, he can't get on the ballot.

i think that's bulls**t.

Below is a portion of a story about the case that recently ran in the Idaho Statesman.

At issue are two constitutional provisions, according to legal documents filed in the case.

The first, which covers qualifications for an "elector," or someone who can run for office, reads:

"Every male or female citizen of the United States, eighteen years old, who has resided in this state and in the county where he or she offers to vote for the period of time provided by law, if registered as provided by law, is a qualified elector."

The second covers qualifications for election to the Legislature and requires that a legislator "shall have resided within the legislative district one year next preceding the general election at which he offers his candidacy."

Taken together, the secretary of state's office maintains, the rules mean candidates must be registered to vote in the districts where they plan to run for at least one full year before they are eligible to seek election. Since Yost didn't register to vote in District 15 until November 2007, Ysursa contends he doesn't qualify.

Yost's lawyer, W. John Thiel, argues that that is an incorrect and "hyper-technical" requirement.

"The analysis wrongfully bootstraps the 'qualified elector' status necessary for voting into the qualifications necessary to be a member of the state Senate," Thiel wrote in a letter to Ysursa last month. "Nowhere does the constitution require a candidate to be a registered voter one year prior to the general election for which the candidate stands."

The Secretary of State approved the candidacy of a convicted felon and, I believe, at least one arguably out-of-state resident. Matt Yost, who’s lived in Idaho all his life and in District 15 for well over a year, can’t run for the Idaho Senate because he didn’t register to vote in time? The constitution doesn’t require candidates to have registered to vote! And don’t we have same-day voter registration?

This makes no sense. The SOS could have interpreted the law in a way that recognizes the legitimacy of Yost’s candidacy, yet it purposely chose a far more restrictive interpretation that denies Yost his right to run for office, and denies voters in District 15 their constitutional right to vote for a qualified candidate.

The Supreme Court should grant Yost’s petition. While court cases typically don’t begin in the Supreme Court, the Court will on occasion hear petitions for writs of mandamus in cases involving important constitutional issues. This is one of those times.

they should let him run. he's been an idaho resident for most of his life, and he is active in the political community. people should get to decide whether or not they want him to serve their community. it shouldn't be based off a technicality such as that. it's ridiculous.

quote #3

About Plime

Plime is an editable wiki community where users can add and edit weird and interesting links. Users earn karma when other users vote on their actions. The more karma you have, the more power you have at Plime.

syndication

+ add a comment

< 1 >