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..............