Posted on 12/03/2004 11:05:27 AM PST by newzjunkey
The hearing is just about the start. John Howard's case will be heard by the 4th Circuit to determine if there should be a new election, if Donna Frye's write-in candidacy was invalid and other related issues.
Plantiff John Howard talking. Charter city can limit write-ins. We don't want a minority mayor (under 50% +1). Never was the intent of the framers of the Charter. Charter is the constitution of the city, state supreme court has upheld that view.
Can everybody say "next stop: appeals court" or "it's time to fire the City Clerk?"
New election? Prevent certification? Only the TRO issue? Joking about misprouncing judge's name. Asking the court to go beyond just the TRO issue or abuse of discretion and address the election problem.
Much talking over by idiot reports... Howard saying the court has the authority, says a decision must be made. Court still concerned they may not have authority, may not be able to do this at this juncture. Saying challenge may only come after certification, asking for writ of mandamus because there was a violation of the Charter, asking for a new proper election with the two legal primary "winners"... City's defense is only "document of latches" and says the city caused the problem. Latches (?) says if you sit on your rights, you've given them up. Howard is arguing he did not know what the charter said and the City can't claim latches because they were the cause of the problem, citizens are not on notice, the city officials are on notice and did nothing to comply with the charter. Talking about case the City claims supports latches... case from Hawaii... says this was a different multi-year circumstance.
Question... who would be new mayor until a new election. Says current mayor would stay as per charter. Female judge asking about muni. election code and waiting until after certification. Howard says the court would not be ignoring that code because he's asking for writ because the election itself was invalid.
Says election code itself is a defence against latches claim. Howard arguing the court needs to act because time of the the essence.
Judge asking when voters knew there would be a write-in. Five weeks. Absentee voting began almost immediately after. Why wasn't this filed during that five weeks prior to the election. Is not knowing the charter a reason to be allowed to wait? Asking court to look at Southwest Voter Registration case for a discussion in the decision... it deals with latches. That case said the plantiff had to have known of his right to challenge the write-in process beforehand. Howard says the party doing the wrong should've been the party to protect the platiff's right.
Says if this is allowed to go, city officials will willfully ignore the charter and the city will again claim latches and get away with it when a citizen catches on to the illegality.
City's lawyer comes up now...
Didn't I read that write in votes are not permitted in this election?
The City is claiming some future court should hold a trial, claims there's overwhelming latches evidence, judge demands to know what other evidence there would be. City talking latches again. Complaining about costs but judge calls him on why the City would say wait even longer. City lawyer says the judge would know they're right if the judge had more time to consider their information. Judge asks if the code in conflict with the charter is invalid... eventually the city lawyer agrees.
Female judge... why did the clerk decide without benefit of legal advice. Claims the case involving a special election to fill a city council seat, involving a would-be candidate possibly excluded by term limits, and said the city clerk at the sole authority to decide who goes on the ballot.
Female judge emphasizes ONLY TWO. City lawyer asked if charter is ambiguous, he's twisting in the wind saying it's not after just arguing it was! Says the city clerk can't arbitrarily decide who to put on the ballot (i.e. a near 3rd place winner).
The city clerk allowed it. The city charter does not. Now we could have an incombent reelected with 2/3rd of the voters having voted for someone else.
I bet you a lot of people voted for Donna Frye because they thought she was Amber's sister.
Female judge criticizing claims only pre-election challenge was possible. City lawyer saying only post-election discoveries can be challenged. Female judge says the city's view seems to be burden on voter would be determining if the candidate is a legal candidate and have to check up on the city clerk for all candidates.
City claims not knowing FACTS (bribe, candidate living in a car, etc.) rather than not knowing LAW, is the only reason they could challenge after the election has begun. Judge pressing to find out if there's a specific code the city lawyer is depending on for that opinion.
Mayor Murphy's lawyer up now...
I wouldn't be surprised.
Seems the court is trying to decide to make a ruling or kick it back for a trial.
Mayor's lawyer says there's no "irreparable harm" because certification can be undone. Says they don't care because the mayor, as they see it, won reelection and will continue as mayor.
Whining the city is a mess, so his client has to stay mayor.
Have you ever seen a picture of Donna Frye?
Says the clerk had no discretion to not allow Frye to run because there's a municipal code in conflict with the charter. Blaming the city attorney and the council for the conflict. Female judge says the city attorney should've sought declaratory relief, the city clerk too and can't fathom how a voter could be held to the knowledge of the city attorney and city clerk.
Please don't post any pictures of her, I just ate lunch. Talk about falling from the ugly tree, I think she hit every branch twice.
Too late. ;)
Donna Frye's lawyer is up now.
Why is she this funny color? She looks dead.
Asking what's Donna's interest since either way they rule Donna's out because either Murphy's won or she was an illegal candidate.
Waaaaaaaay too much sun. She's a surfer chick and co-owns a surf shop with her husband.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.