Sunday, November 7, 2010

GREG FISCHER AND JACKIE GREEN REVISITED: WILL THE MAYORAL ELECTION BE DECLARED INVALID?

As you know I have stated that if the Republican party did not bring charges against Greg Fischer and Jackie Green for violating KRS 121.055 that I would. I will be doing so within the next week. My apologies for not doing it sooner but time has been a problem.

To support my case there is a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling from 1996 in Ellis v. Meeks that you can read here:
ELLIS v. MEEKS

Ellis v. Meeks is a great example of voiding an election for violation of KRS 121.055. below is an excerpt from that decision.

......Kentucky's Corrupt Practices Act, as codified in KRS 121.055, requires the disqualification of a political candidate under the following circumstances:

No candidate for nomination or election to any state, county, city or district office shall expend, pay, promise, loan or become liable in any way for money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, to any person in consideration of the vote or financial or moral support of that person. No such candidate shall promise, agree or make a contract with any person to vote for or support any particular individual, thing or measure, in consideration for the vote or the financial or moral support of that person in any election, primary or nominating convention, and support of that person in any election, primary or nominating convention, and no person shall require that any candidate make such a promise, agreement or contract.


KRS 121.055 clearly prohibits a candidate from offering anything or promising any consideration, either directly or indirectly, in exchange for the support of a voter. The Court of Appeals' decision places great weight on the stipulation that Meeks did not verbally ask any voter to vote for him. We assert, however, that KRS 121.055 does not require a "verbal" communication. On the contrary, the statute contemplates that votes may be bought by gifts with no words spoken, and prohibits a candidate from even indirectly giving anything of value to a voter....

Of course the "value" here is Jackie Green, after being promised "significant input," withdrawing from the race and endorsing Greg Fischer. Jackie Green clearly received something in return for his vote and moral support.

Since there clearly was an advantage gained by a Fischer promise KRS 121.055 was clearly violated, and according to KRS 120.065, Fischer's candidacy should be voided and the nomination, and election, should be deemed vacant.

So what does this all mean?

Well it could mean a special election be held for Mayor. The Metro Council has the authority to appoint a Mayor to fulfill the unexpired term of the sitting Mayor in the event the seat is forfeited for any reason, however, there is no stipulation for the Council to have the power for this in the event of a Mayor elect who has not been sworn in yet.

When I file the charges according to KRS 120. 055 Fischer and crew will have seven (7) days to respond and then of course the appeals process. Given the nature of this complaint this should be decided quite quickly and prior to January 3, 2010 which will leave a vacancy in the Mayor's office through default.

In the interest of fairness to we the voter a decision should be rendered immediately nullifying this election and forcing a special election.

The Supreme Court decision in Ellis v. Meeks even includes language to protect the integrity of the electoral and judicial system itself:


Every candidate who runs for office is entitled to an even playing field, especially at a time when the electorate's confidence in the electoral process is increasingly diminished, as evidenced by the fewer number of voters who actually participate in the voting process. This Court cannot approve of or condone the conduct engaged in by Meeks at the polling stations in the 11th Ward. There was definitely not an even playing field in this case and if we were to leave this case as it currently stands, the confidence of the voters would not only diminish with respect to the electoral process, but also with the judicial process as a whole.

Consequently, based upon our decision in Adams, supra, and the law set forth in KRS 120.065, we find that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's dismissal of appellant's election contest action and, thus, reverse their decision, finding that Meeks' conduct did violate both KRS 117.235 and KRS 121.055.

We have a case here and we the voters are entitled to fairness in elections as decided by the Supreme Court itself.

Now let's see if they follow through and do their job in a timely manner..............

5 comments:

  1. Awesome, get him Ed - looks like a precedent has been set in that other case. Thanks for your courage

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow- seems like you are on to something here

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ok, so the Pleasure Ridge Park Fire District had and election in June 2009 that was declared invalid because of an Mayor appointed board member found and admitted openly to electioneering at the polls.

    So what happened.. Well the board decided to have another election and the winner name submitted to the Mayors office for appointment to this office. The winner was not selected by the Mayor because of Party affiliation.

    So what should have happened... Charges should have been placed on the person quilty of electioneering should have been charged criminally, and the person whom he was electioneering for disqualified, and his opponent elected instead by default.

    Good Luck

    ReplyDelete
  4. I supported Hal Heiner in the mayoral race.

    I agree you have "a case."

    But is there a "strong case"? That, of course, depends upon further investigation. At this point, there is a good deal of smoke, but the fire has yet to make its appearance.

    We have to admit that all we have right now are significant suggestions of wrongdoing, but not a smoking gun yet. Since the hardest evidence so far only comes from Green's side, this could be ultimately be written off as Green's delusions.

    We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve the case is as strong as any. The fact that Jackie was promised something that was significan to him in exchange for his vote and endorsement is clear cut.

    There is no distinction in the law that can be interpreted any other way and that is why this election needs to be thrown out. Also accoridng to Fischer's press release at the time he even stated this:

    "Fischer has announced plans to create the Office of Sustainability, a Cabinet-level department that reports directly to the mayor and works to make Louisville a greener city. Fischer said he will consult with Green to provide significant input to help structure that office."

    That is the admission and from his own release. He priomised Jackie Green something, in this case input to help structure the office, and that was a value to Green who in turn endorsed Fischer and gave him his vote.

    This is the "smoking gun."

    We only have to prove that there was a deal and this verifies that there was.

    Thanks for writing.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for reading LNP. Open and honest discussions of local politics and relevant issues is important to voter understanding. Please listen to the "Ed Springston Show". We broadcast Monday through Thursday evenings at 7 PM on local media outlets. Please check for the links.
Yours truly,
Ed Springston

JOHNSON TO REMAIN ON COUNCIL.....AS IT SHOULD BE

The Metro removal hearing case against Dan Johnson ended about the way it began. With many in disbelief. I could not understand how the &q...