Posted on 09/24/2008 2:48:39 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Marianne Sumi ruled today that Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen can sue the Government Accountability Board even though the board is a client of the attorney general's office.
Lester Pines, the attorney for the GAB, made the conflict-of-interest argument the center of his objection to having Van Hollen involved in the lawsuit. Pines said the Wisconsin Supreme Court rules specifically prohibit a lawyer from suing a client.
But Sumi said that under the Supreme Court provision the attorney general can have deputies enforce laws upon state agencies. That means the attorney general can proceed with the case he filed against the Government Accountability Board.
But, Sumi added, "Whether or not the attorney general should be using his authority in this way is something to be decided at the ballot box when the attorney general is subject to reelection."
Van Hollen's suit asks Sumi to require the Government Accountability Board to cross-reference with other state databases the names of voters who have registered since January 2006. Opponents of the suit say the process would result in keeping eligible voters from voting on Election Day.
She put the schedule on track to decide the case on Oct. 23, only about two weeks before the election.
The Republican party then complained that the schedule would not allow time for a process to be in place to enforce whatever the ruling might be.
In fact, after the hearing, GOP party director Mark Jefferson accused the GAB and other litigants of "trying to run out the clock."
Pine said during the hearing he plans on filing a motion to dismiss based on the grounds that the attorney general does not have the authority to file this lawsuit.
"The attorney general is overstepping his authority and we will explain that in detail," in court briefings, Pine said after the hearing.
Steve Means, Justice Department records custodian, after hearing arugments from the intervenors, immediately after they were granted permission to take part in the case, said, "I'm convinced now that the intervenors can and will inflate this lawsuit into something enormous."
FYI: Our 'Rat Governor has VETOED any and all introduced legislation to clean up our voting process. Gee. I wonder why? Jerk.
Good news!
Have to protect all those fraudulent votes, the life blood of the Dummacrap party.
I happen to know Maryann Sumi, she is a Democrat, but nonetheless, why in the world does she need to inject her personal opinion into this? As a judge, she is supposed to be an impartial referee, she is not called to insert her subtle yet clear message that she thinks Van Hollen should be politically punished. Make no mistake, Democrats have argued in this case and in public that Van Hollen is acting in a self interested partisan manner. Sumi's comment intentionally seeks to bolster that argument. The question is, should voter fraud be rooted out or not? Should the law be upheld or not?
Tell me, why are Democrats so opposed to rooting out voter fraud?
First, David Lee Roth walks out on them, now this.
That is always the argument made by the dummycrats. Never a suggestion that we need to work hard to be sure that ineligible "voters" don't vote on Election Day.
Because they depend on it.
Google “voter fraud” or “ACORN fraud”... the overwhelming majority of the investigations, complaints, and convictions involve democrats.
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.