Full Version: Taxation without Representation
Some are calling this a “constitutional crisis” as it made a few blips on the national news radar after the 2004 election but hasn’t received much attention since, even locally.
Here’s a decent time line, a bit dated.
The basics: A state Senate race in the 37th district (Louisville, KY - Jefferson County) pitted Republican Diana Seum Stephenson against Democrat Virginia Woodward. The day before the election Woodward filed a suit and held a press conference to tell the media that Seum Stephenson did not meet the requirements to run for Senator, specifically the residency requirements.
The two residency requirements:
1) Must be a resident of your district for at least one year
2) Must be a resident of Kentucky for at least six years
Election day: Seum Stephenson won the election by 1022 votes. Shortly thereafter a Jefferson Count Circuit Court Judge ruled that indeed, Seum Stephenson did not meet the requirement of living in the state for at least six years. Although Seum Stephenson has a house in Kentucky and one in Indiana (where she lived from 1997-2001) the judge based his ruling on the fact that she had successfully applied for and received an Indiana state drivers license which by Kentucky law means she no longer was a legal resident of the state.
Also:
Case closed.
Well, not quite.
The Republican controlled Senate used the provision in the state constitution that gives the houses of the General Assembly authority to “judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of it’s members.” After all it was the Senate who originally wrote the residency requirements (that would be the qualifications portion of what they can judge) but some how, some way, that suddenly doesn’t apply here.
The GOP controlled senate decided to form a nine member special committee whose members were drawn by lot. Five Democrats and four Republicans were drawn and to no surprise all voted along party lines and gave the nod to Woodward.
Case closed.
Well, not quite.
The GOP controlled senate then decided to vote as a body and with the majority in power elected and swore Seum Stephenson into office. Woodward successfully petitioned the courts and kept Seum Stephenson from holding the state senate position.
Here is the portion of the state constitution that addresses the general assemblies oversight of election results that the GOP claims is up for interpretation. Ratified August 3, 1891 by the general assembly.
The GOP’s stance is they have the right to “ascertain the results of elections” and that this is a “contested election”. But….
The portion of the state constitution detailing it’s members qualifications. Ratified August 3, 1891 by the general assembly.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Addressing some of the legal points: Jim Millman, Suem Stephenson’s attorney and Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Barry Willett.
Man, $250 an hour and the best he can come up with is “she spent some nights in the city and always planned to return”. Reminder to self, do not hire this man as my attorney.
And why all the fuss? If Republican Suem Stephenson is awarded the seat then the GOP has a “lay down” majority of 23-14. And with the hot water that our first Repubilcan governor in 32 years is in, this has far reaching implications.
One of the things I’d like to point out is something I overheard in a discussion several months ago over this subject. A political analyst mentioned that most state’s constitutions are written in the same manner. So apparently this could happen almost any where.
I thought this should have been a shut and closed case but I’m obviously missing something that will hopefully surface in this debate. On to the questions:
Is this a case of a clearly unqualified candidate and her party attempting to circumvent the system? If not, what is it?
Does a political party hold some element of responsibility by ensuring their candidates meet all qualifications?
Is it safe to assume that since Suem Stephenson disregarded the law, or didn’t pay attention to the law in her bid for a senate seat that she wouldn’t be an effective legislator? How can you set law when you ignore those already in place or try to bend them in you favor?
What should be done here, disregard the state constitution, the judges ruling and hold a special election?
What can be done to prevent this from occurring again, possibly in your state?
Who should be currently representing the 37th district?
Afterall, we have taxpayers who haven't been represented in almost a year.
Here’s a decent time line, a bit dated.
The basics: A state Senate race in the 37th district (Louisville, KY - Jefferson County) pitted Republican Diana Seum Stephenson against Democrat Virginia Woodward. The day before the election Woodward filed a suit and held a press conference to tell the media that Seum Stephenson did not meet the requirements to run for Senator, specifically the residency requirements.
The two residency requirements:
1) Must be a resident of your district for at least one year
2) Must be a resident of Kentucky for at least six years
Election day: Seum Stephenson won the election by 1022 votes. Shortly thereafter a Jefferson Count Circuit Court Judge ruled that indeed, Seum Stephenson did not meet the requirement of living in the state for at least six years. Although Seum Stephenson has a house in Kentucky and one in Indiana (where she lived from 1997-2001) the judge based his ruling on the fact that she had successfully applied for and received an Indiana state drivers license which by Kentucky law means she no longer was a legal resident of the state.
Also:
QUOTE
It turns out that for three of the previous six years, while she maintained property in Kentucky, she had voted, paid taxes and declared her legal residence to be across the Ohio River in Indiana.
Case closed.
Well, not quite.
The Republican controlled Senate used the provision in the state constitution that gives the houses of the General Assembly authority to “judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of it’s members.” After all it was the Senate who originally wrote the residency requirements (that would be the qualifications portion of what they can judge) but some how, some way, that suddenly doesn’t apply here.
The GOP controlled senate decided to form a nine member special committee whose members were drawn by lot. Five Democrats and four Republicans were drawn and to no surprise all voted along party lines and gave the nod to Woodward.
Case closed.
Well, not quite.
The GOP controlled senate then decided to vote as a body and with the majority in power elected and swore Seum Stephenson into office. Woodward successfully petitioned the courts and kept Seum Stephenson from holding the state senate position.
Here is the portion of the state constitution that addresses the general assemblies oversight of election results that the GOP claims is up for interpretation. Ratified August 3, 1891 by the general assembly.
QUOTE(KY Constitution)
Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, the General Assembly shall have power to provide by general law for the manner of voting, for ascertaining the result of elections and making due returns thereof, for issuing certificates or commissions to all persons entitled thereto, and for the trial of contested elections.
The GOP’s stance is they have the right to “ascertain the results of elections” and that this is a “contested election”. But….
The portion of the state constitution detailing it’s members qualifications. Ratified August 3, 1891 by the general assembly.
QUOTE(KY Constitution)
No person shall be a Representative who, at the time of his election, is not a citizen of Kentucky, has not attained the age of twenty-four years, and who has not resided in this State two years next preceding his election, and the last year thereof in the county, town or city for which he may be chosen. No person shall be a Senator who, at the time of his election, is not a citizen of Kentucky, has not attained the age of thirty years, and has not resided in this State six years next preceding his election, and the last year thereof in the district for which he may be chosen.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Addressing some of the legal points: Jim Millman, Suem Stephenson’s attorney and Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Barry Willett.
QUOTE
Milliman argued that the court didn't have standing to rule on whether his client could be a candidate — he said that was up to the state Senate — and that Woodward waited too long to challenge Stephenson's candidacy. Woodward's challenge came a day before the election.
Milliman said she should have filed her complaint by Sept. 20, when early and absentee voting began. Willett rejected that argument, saying state law requires the challenge be filed before the election begins and that the law clearly defines the election date as the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. He also ruled that state law clearly gave the courts jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of candidates.
Milliman argued that Stephenson met the residency requirement because she spent some nights in the city and always planned to return. He also claimed the six-year residency requirement is unconstitutional.
Milliman said she should have filed her complaint by Sept. 20, when early and absentee voting began. Willett rejected that argument, saying state law requires the challenge be filed before the election begins and that the law clearly defines the election date as the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. He also ruled that state law clearly gave the courts jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of candidates.
Milliman argued that Stephenson met the residency requirement because she spent some nights in the city and always planned to return. He also claimed the six-year residency requirement is unconstitutional.
Man, $250 an hour and the best he can come up with is “she spent some nights in the city and always planned to return”. Reminder to self, do not hire this man as my attorney.
And why all the fuss? If Republican Suem Stephenson is awarded the seat then the GOP has a “lay down” majority of 23-14. And with the hot water that our first Repubilcan governor in 32 years is in, this has far reaching implications.
One of the things I’d like to point out is something I overheard in a discussion several months ago over this subject. A political analyst mentioned that most state’s constitutions are written in the same manner. So apparently this could happen almost any where.
I thought this should have been a shut and closed case but I’m obviously missing something that will hopefully surface in this debate. On to the questions:
Is this a case of a clearly unqualified candidate and her party attempting to circumvent the system? If not, what is it?
Does a political party hold some element of responsibility by ensuring their candidates meet all qualifications?
Is it safe to assume that since Suem Stephenson disregarded the law, or didn’t pay attention to the law in her bid for a senate seat that she wouldn’t be an effective legislator? How can you set law when you ignore those already in place or try to bend them in you favor?
What should be done here, disregard the state constitution, the judges ruling and hold a special election?
What can be done to prevent this from occurring again, possibly in your state?
Who should be currently representing the 37th district?
Afterall, we have taxpayers who haven't been represented in almost a year.
Is this a case of a clearly unqualified candidate and her party attempting to circumvent the system? If not, what is it?
Does a political party hold some element of responsibility by ensuring their candidates meet all qualifications?
Absolutely. Not on a legal level, but on a party level.
Is it safe to assume that since Suem Stephenson disregarded the law, or didn’t pay attention to the law in her bid for a senate seat that she wouldn’t be an effective legislator? How can you set law when you ignore those already in place or try to bend them in you favor?
Loaded question. There is the possibility that she thought (or was advised) that she met the requirements. I don't think this says anything about her ability to legislate. It does say something about politics today that the rest of the legislature would bypass the law and confirm her.
What should be done here, disregard the state constitution, the judges ruling and hold a special election?
Special election. The voters elected someone who was not eligible. They did not elect the other guy. A special election is needed.
What can be done to prevent this from occurring again, possibly in your state?
We need respect for the law to be more commonplace, even among state legislators.
Who should be currently representing the 37th district?
No one until the results of the special election are known.
Does a political party hold some element of responsibility by ensuring their candidates meet all qualifications?
Absolutely. Not on a legal level, but on a party level.
Is it safe to assume that since Suem Stephenson disregarded the law, or didn’t pay attention to the law in her bid for a senate seat that she wouldn’t be an effective legislator? How can you set law when you ignore those already in place or try to bend them in you favor?
Loaded question. There is the possibility that she thought (or was advised) that she met the requirements. I don't think this says anything about her ability to legislate. It does say something about politics today that the rest of the legislature would bypass the law and confirm her.
What should be done here, disregard the state constitution, the judges ruling and hold a special election?
Special election. The voters elected someone who was not eligible. They did not elect the other guy. A special election is needed.
What can be done to prevent this from occurring again, possibly in your state?
We need respect for the law to be more commonplace, even among state legislators.
Who should be currently representing the 37th district?
No one until the results of the special election are known.
Is this a case of a clearly unqualified candidate and her party attempting to circumvent the system? If not, what is it?
I think it is clear that Seum Stephenson is not qualified. It is equally apparent that the members of legislature, from both sides of the aisle, are motivated purely for political gain. Each delegate (with maybe a few anonymous exceptions) seems to have been acting to further their party's goals, and not uphold the law. I don't exclude the democrats from this.
Does a political party hold some element of responsibility by ensuring their candidates meet all qualifications?
I would say yes. If a party is going to give a candidate their support, they need to take the responsibility to make sure the candidate is qualified. I think the Republicans, and Seum Stephenson, should have taken greater care to make certain she was qualified.
At the same time, I think the fact that Woodward waited until the day before the election, points to the fact that she was playing politics as well. What better strategy could you hope for than to let your opposition spend their time and money campaigning, and then disqualify that candidate the day before the election? No time for a new candidate. Woodward deserves a finger or two pointed at her as well.
Is it safe to assume that since Suem Stephenson disregarded the law, or didn’t pay attention to the law in her bid for a senate seat that she wouldn’t be an effective legislator? How can you set law when you ignore those already in place or try to bend them in you favor?
Well, that's pretty ambiguous. Effective at what? If you're meaning, will she represent the people who voted for her, and pass legislation that benefits them? It's certainly possible, and is unrelated to whether she would be a hypocrit.
Additionally, it is certainly possible that everyone honestly thought she was qualified, except her opponent who managed to dig up a technicality against her.
What should be done here, disregard the state constitution, the judges ruling and hold a special election?
Three options:
1) Give the election to Seum Stephenson. This would recognize the will of the people who honestly elected her, but would ignore state law, etc.
2) Give the election to Woodward. This would technically meet the requirements of the law, since she received the most votes of all the eligible candidates, but unfortunately this would be a punch in the face to the majority of Kentucky citizens who voted for Seum Stephenson.
3) Hold a special election - Unless I'm mistaken, this would also meet the requirements of the law, and also give Kentuckyans the ability to elect the person a majority prefers.
I would go for the special election.
What can be done to prevent this from occurring again, possibly in your state?
The primary problem came from the fact that Seum Stephenson's lack of qualifications was not known until it was far too late to do anything but keep going. I think it would help to have a law that requires candidates to prove their eligibility, and opponents to disprove it, by a certain date preceding the election. After that date has passed, then no more questions can be fielded, unless it can be proven that fraud occurred.
Who should be currently representing the 37th district?
I think it would be more unfair to not have any representation, than to have an unqualified candidate, or a minority-approved candidate. So temporarily, until the special election can be held, one of them should fill the position. I would have to tentatively give it to Seum Stephenson, 1) because the majority preferred her, and 2) her qualifications were not questioned until the last minute, when they could have been questioned far earlier.
I think it is clear that Seum Stephenson is not qualified. It is equally apparent that the members of legislature, from both sides of the aisle, are motivated purely for political gain. Each delegate (with maybe a few anonymous exceptions) seems to have been acting to further their party's goals, and not uphold the law. I don't exclude the democrats from this.
Does a political party hold some element of responsibility by ensuring their candidates meet all qualifications?
I would say yes. If a party is going to give a candidate their support, they need to take the responsibility to make sure the candidate is qualified. I think the Republicans, and Seum Stephenson, should have taken greater care to make certain she was qualified.
At the same time, I think the fact that Woodward waited until the day before the election, points to the fact that she was playing politics as well. What better strategy could you hope for than to let your opposition spend their time and money campaigning, and then disqualify that candidate the day before the election? No time for a new candidate. Woodward deserves a finger or two pointed at her as well.
Is it safe to assume that since Suem Stephenson disregarded the law, or didn’t pay attention to the law in her bid for a senate seat that she wouldn’t be an effective legislator? How can you set law when you ignore those already in place or try to bend them in you favor?
Well, that's pretty ambiguous. Effective at what? If you're meaning, will she represent the people who voted for her, and pass legislation that benefits them? It's certainly possible, and is unrelated to whether she would be a hypocrit.
Additionally, it is certainly possible that everyone honestly thought she was qualified, except her opponent who managed to dig up a technicality against her.
What should be done here, disregard the state constitution, the judges ruling and hold a special election?
Three options:
1) Give the election to Seum Stephenson. This would recognize the will of the people who honestly elected her, but would ignore state law, etc.
2) Give the election to Woodward. This would technically meet the requirements of the law, since she received the most votes of all the eligible candidates, but unfortunately this would be a punch in the face to the majority of Kentucky citizens who voted for Seum Stephenson.
3) Hold a special election - Unless I'm mistaken, this would also meet the requirements of the law, and also give Kentuckyans the ability to elect the person a majority prefers.
I would go for the special election.
What can be done to prevent this from occurring again, possibly in your state?
The primary problem came from the fact that Seum Stephenson's lack of qualifications was not known until it was far too late to do anything but keep going. I think it would help to have a law that requires candidates to prove their eligibility, and opponents to disprove it, by a certain date preceding the election. After that date has passed, then no more questions can be fielded, unless it can be proven that fraud occurred.
Who should be currently representing the 37th district?
I think it would be more unfair to not have any representation, than to have an unqualified candidate, or a minority-approved candidate. So temporarily, until the special election can be held, one of them should fill the position. I would have to tentatively give it to Seum Stephenson, 1) because the majority preferred her, and 2) her qualifications were not questioned until the last minute, when they could have been questioned far earlier.
QUOTE(jaellon @ Oct 11 2005, 03:56 PM)
Is this a case of a clearly unqualified candidate and her party attempting to circumvent the system? If not, what is it?
I think it is clear that Seum Stephenson is not qualified. It is equally apparent that the members of legislature, from both sides of the aisle, are motivated purely for political gain. Each delegate (with maybe a few anonymous exceptions) seems to have been acting to further their party's goals, and not uphold the law. I don't exclude the democrats from this.
I think it is clear that Seum Stephenson is not qualified. It is equally apparent that the members of legislature, from both sides of the aisle, are motivated purely for political gain. Each delegate (with maybe a few anonymous exceptions) seems to have been acting to further their party's goals, and not uphold the law. I don't exclude the democrats from this.
Excuse me, what? You don't exclude the Democrats from not upholding the law? What law exactly was it that they broke? Seems to me, this is all on the shoulders of Seum-Stephenson, and whomever interpreted the residency requirements for her. Both sides of the isle may well be motivated by partisan gain. So what?
Either the candidate followed the law, or she didn't. And the Republicans in the state legislature either followed it's own laws concerning residency requirements, or they threw them out the window for political expediency. In both cases, I fail at all to see where it is that Democrats bent or broke the law. Perhaps you can point it out to me.
QUOTE
Does a political party hold some element of responsibility by ensuring their candidates meet all qualifications?
I would say yes. If a party is going to give a candidate their support, they need to take the responsibility to make sure the candidate is qualified. I think the Republicans, and Seum Stephenson, should have taken greater care to make certain she was qualified.
At the same time, I think the fact that Woodward waited until the day before the election, points to the fact that she was playing politics as well. What better strategy could you hope for than to let your opposition spend their time and money campaigning, and then disqualify that candidate the day before the election? No time for a new candidate. Woodward deserves a finger or two pointed at her as well.
I would say yes. If a party is going to give a candidate their support, they need to take the responsibility to make sure the candidate is qualified. I think the Republicans, and Seum Stephenson, should have taken greater care to make certain she was qualified.
At the same time, I think the fact that Woodward waited until the day before the election, points to the fact that she was playing politics as well. What better strategy could you hope for than to let your opposition spend their time and money campaigning, and then disqualify that candidate the day before the election? No time for a new candidate. Woodward deserves a finger or two pointed at her as well.
Now, hold on just a second there, sport. Woodward deserves a finger pointed at her for what, exactly? Taking advantage of the way the law was written? The law did not require anyone to point out Seum-Stephenson's ineligibility a month before the elections, or six weeks before the election. It only says that it must take place before the election. If you don't like the law, you are certainly free to work to have it changed. Until it's changed, however, you really have no case.
QUOTE
Is it safe to assume that since Suem Stephenson disregarded the law, or didn’t pay attention to the law in her bid for a senate seat that she wouldn’t be an effective legislator? How can you set law when you ignore those already in place or try to bend them in you favor?
Well, that's pretty ambiguous. Effective at what? If you're meaning, will she represent the people who voted for her, and pass legislation that benefits them? It's certainly possible, and is unrelated to whether she would be a hypocrit.
Additionally, it is certainly possible that everyone honestly thought she was qualified, except her opponent who managed to dig up a technicality against her.
Well, that's pretty ambiguous. Effective at what? If you're meaning, will she represent the people who voted for her, and pass legislation that benefits them? It's certainly possible, and is unrelated to whether she would be a hypocrit.
Additionally, it is certainly possible that everyone honestly thought she was qualified, except her opponent who managed to dig up a technicality against her.
Of course it's possible that everyone honestly thought she was qualified. It's also possible, indeed probable, that in this instance, they were honestly wrong. As for technicalities? This isn't really very difficult or technical at all. Seum-Stephenson gave up her Kentucky DL for an Indiana one. She owned a house, and got her mail and her newspaper at an Indiana address. Seems to me, that makes her an Indiana resident, regardless of what "she always intended" to do.
What should be done here, disregard the state constitution, the judges ruling and hold a special election?
Give the election to Woodward. This would legally meet the requirements of the law, since she received the most votes of all the eligible candidates.
Unfortunately this would be a punch in the face to the majority of Kentucky citizens who voted for Seum Stephenson. It's not their fault that their candidate violated state election laws. On the other hand, next time, maybe they'll make sure their candidate is truly qualified to represent them.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Oct 11 2005, 04:42 PM)
QUOTE(jaellon @ Oct 11 2005, 03:56 PM)
Is this a case of a clearly unqualified candidate and her party attempting to circumvent the system? If not, what is it?
I think it is clear that Seum Stephenson is not qualified. It is equally apparent that the members of legislature, from both sides of the aisle, are motivated purely for political gain. Each delegate (with maybe a few anonymous exceptions) seems to have been acting to further their party's goals, and not uphold the law. I don't exclude the democrats from this.
I think it is clear that Seum Stephenson is not qualified. It is equally apparent that the members of legislature, from both sides of the aisle, are motivated purely for political gain. Each delegate (with maybe a few anonymous exceptions) seems to have been acting to further their party's goals, and not uphold the law. I don't exclude the democrats from this.
Excuse me, what? You don't exclude the Democrats from not upholding the law? What law exactly was it that they broke? Seems to me, this is all on the shoulders of Seum-Stephenson, and whomever interpreted the residency requirements for her. Both sides of the isle may well be motivated by partisan gain. So what?
Either the candidate followed the law, or she didn't. And the Republicans in the state legislature either followed it's own laws concerning residency requirements, or they threw them out the window for political expediency. In both cases, I fail at all to see where it is that Democrats bent or broke the law. Perhaps you can point it out to me.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Oct 11 2005, 04:42 PM)
QUOTE
Does a political party hold some element of responsibility by ensuring their candidates meet all qualifications?
I would say yes. If a party is going to give a candidate their support, they need to take the responsibility to make sure the candidate is qualified. I think the Republicans, and Seum Stephenson, should have taken greater care to make certain she was qualified.
At the same time, I think the fact that Woodward waited until the day before the election, points to the fact that she was playing politics as well. What better strategy could you hope for than to let your opposition spend their time and money campaigning, and then disqualify that candidate the day before the election? No time for a new candidate. Woodward deserves a finger or two pointed at her as well.
I would say yes. If a party is going to give a candidate their support, they need to take the responsibility to make sure the candidate is qualified. I think the Republicans, and Seum Stephenson, should have taken greater care to make certain she was qualified.
At the same time, I think the fact that Woodward waited until the day before the election, points to the fact that she was playing politics as well. What better strategy could you hope for than to let your opposition spend their time and money campaigning, and then disqualify that candidate the day before the election? No time for a new candidate. Woodward deserves a finger or two pointed at her as well.
Now, hold on just a second there, sport. Woodward deserves a finger pointed at her for what, exactly? Taking advantage of the way the law was written? The law did not require anyone to point out Seum-Stephenson's ineligibility a month before the elections, or six weeks before the election. It only says that it must take place before the election. If you don't like the law, you are certainly free to work to have it changed. Until it's changed, however, you really have no case.
Yes, NiteGuy, Woodward broke no law. Ethically, however, she is in the wrong if she knew well beforehand that her candidate was not qualified. Supposedly she is campaigning for the privilege of representing her constituents. As the vote turned out, roughly half of the citizens of that district opposed her, but by waiting until the 11th hour to raise her concerns, she has made certain that more than half of them get their vote thrown out. Legally, there's probably not not any kind of case against her, but ethically (assuming she knew), she's in the wrong. Or do you think it was fair to Kentuckyans to deny them a choice of candidates?
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Oct 11 2005, 04:42 PM)
QUOTE
Is it safe to assume that since Suem Stephenson disregarded the law, or didn’t pay attention to the law in her bid for a senate seat that she wouldn’t be an effective legislator? How can you set law when you ignore those already in place or try to bend them in you favor?
Well, that's pretty ambiguous. Effective at what? If you're meaning, will she represent the people who voted for her, and pass legislation that benefits them? It's certainly possible, and is unrelated to whether she would be a hypocrit.
Additionally, it is certainly possible that everyone honestly thought she was qualified, except her opponent who managed to dig up a technicality against her.
Well, that's pretty ambiguous. Effective at what? If you're meaning, will she represent the people who voted for her, and pass legislation that benefits them? It's certainly possible, and is unrelated to whether she would be a hypocrit.
Additionally, it is certainly possible that everyone honestly thought she was qualified, except her opponent who managed to dig up a technicality against her.
Of course it's possible that everyone honestly thought she was qualified. It's also possible, indeed probable, that in this instance, they were honestly wrong. As for technicalities? This isn't really very difficult or technical at all. Seum-Stephenson gave up her Kentucky DL for an Indiana one. She owned a house, and got her mail and her newspaper at an Indiana address. Seems to me, that makes her an Indiana resident, regardless of what "she always intended" to do.
I can buy that. If the facts can show that Seum Stephenson could not have reasonably been considered a resident of Kentucky, then she shouldn't be declared the winner.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Oct 11 2005, 04:42 PM)
What should be done here, disregard the state constitution, the judges ruling and hold a special election?
Give the election to Woodward. This would legally meet the requirements of the law, since she received the most votes of all the eligible candidates.
Unfortunately this would be a punch in the face to the majority of Kentucky citizens who voted for Seum Stephenson. It's not their fault that their candidate violated state election laws. On the other hand, next time, maybe they'll make sure their candidate is truly qualified to represent them.
Give the election to Woodward. This would legally meet the requirements of the law, since she received the most votes of all the eligible candidates.
Unfortunately this would be a punch in the face to the majority of Kentucky citizens who voted for Seum Stephenson. It's not their fault that their candidate violated state election laws. On the other hand, next time, maybe they'll make sure their candidate is truly qualified to represent them.
Are you placing the blame on the citizens? You seem to agree that it's "a punch in the face" to them, but seem pretty unaffected by that. You can interpret the election results as meaning two things:
1) a majority preferred Seum Stephenson
2) a majority opposed Woodward
I have a hard time ignoring the fact that a majority opposed Woodward, but we are supposed to give her the election anyway. If Seum Stephenson is unqualified, so be it, and I could accept Woodward temporarily, but I think there should be a special election to let the voters truly decide.
(side note: If you are going to use my words, please place them in a quote. Everything but the first and last sentence in the quote above is my own wording.)
QUOTE(jaellon @ Oct 13 2005, 12:42 PM)
Breaking the law, no, but only because the law in this case favors them. When there are two sides of an issue that comes up, and 100% of the delegates vote in lockstep with their party, that indicates, statistically, that they are more inclined to represent their party than objectively consider the facts at hand. This holds true for both parties in this case. I don't believe for a minute that the Democrats' pious wish is to uphold the law.
Perhaps not. But again, so what? The fact of the mattter is, Woodward broke no law here. Seum-Stephenson did. And we're supposed to give her a pass for that, and condemn the Democrats? I don't think so....
QUOTE
Yes, NiteGuy, Woodward broke no law. Ethically, however, she is in the wrong if she knew well beforehand that her candidate was not qualified. Supposedly she is campaigning for the privilege of representing her constituents. As the vote turned out, roughly half of the citizens of that district opposed her, but by waiting until the 11th hour to raise her concerns, she has made certain that more than half of them get their vote thrown out. Legally, there's probably not not any kind of case against her, but ethically (assuming she knew), she's in the wrong. Or do you think it was fair to Kentuckyans to deny them a choice of candidates?
Can you tell me definitively when the Woodward campaign found out about the residency requirement? Do you know for a fact she knew months beforehand, or just a few days? And how long does it take to verify this information, so that the allegation can't be painted as "mere political manuevering"?
QUOTE
I can buy that. If the facts can show that Seum Stephenson could not have reasonably been considered a resident of Kentucky, then she shouldn't be declared the winner.
Thank you.
QUOTE
Are you placing the blame on the citizens? You seem to agree that it's "a punch in the face" to them, but seem pretty unaffected by that. You can interpret the election results as meaning two things:
1) a majority preferred Seum Stephenson
2) a majority opposed Woodward
I have a hard time ignoring the fact that a majority opposed Woodward, but we are supposed to give her the election anyway. If Seum Stephenson is unqualified, so be it, and I could accept Woodward temporarily, but I think there should be a special election to let the voters truly decide.
1) a majority preferred Seum Stephenson
2) a majority opposed Woodward
I have a hard time ignoring the fact that a majority opposed Woodward, but we are supposed to give her the election anyway. If Seum Stephenson is unqualified, so be it, and I could accept Woodward temporarily, but I think there should be a special election to let the voters truly decide.
Yes, I am holding the electorate partially responsible for what happened. And I am holding the local media responsible as well. Look, electing a representative for you requires more than reading the flyer they leave on your windshield at the supermarket parking lot, and watching a few commercials. If you can't take the time to find out more about your politician than the soundbites offered in an ad, you deserve the representation you get.
Now, I'm not saying that every citizen should be required to personally make sure that all of the election laws are being followed to a "T", but where were the people who should have been able to do this for us in this instance? The newspapers, and TV stations and news radio? Nobody, in a 3 to 6 month election campaign process thought to wonder how she could be qualified for an elected position in Kentucky, while she holds a primary residence in another state?
As for the "special election" - sorry, not even close. Seum-Stephenson would have to re-establish residency in Kentucky, and that would mean living full time in in the state for a proscribed period of time. Perhaps as long as a year, depending on the law. You really want to give her a pass, and allow her to run again in a year, when someone else (who was qualified, by the way) has been in the position, and doing the job for that long?
Sorry, that doesn''t wash with me. She screwed up. It happens. So she takes her lumps now, and can run again in four years.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Loaded question. There is the possibility that she thought (or was advised) that she met the requirements. I don't think this says anything about her ability to legislate. It does say something about politics today that the rest of the legislature would bypass the law and confirm her.
You say “loaded” I say fair.
Ok, she pleads ignorance that she “thought” she was qualified or was advised. If she has problems understanding and interpreting two straight forward residency requirements and how they apply to her situation than why should we believe she can effectively handle more complex issues and give them their due diligence? We usually don’t get insight on how incompetent a candidate is until after they’re in office. Fortunately that’s not the case here.
The only other option is she knew that she didn’t meet requirements but went ahead any way. Don’t know about you but that tells me that she has no respect for the law, thinks she’s above it and now we’re going to allow her make new laws?
In my book she doesn’t win either way.
One of the battle cries from the right which also appeals to my conservative nature is “personal responsibility”. But for some reason you and her “personal responsibility party” want to give her a “get out of jail free card” and stonewall an entire district out of representation for what is now almost a year.
She screwed up, her party screwed up, they should admit their mistakes and concede the seat until a special election is held. But I’m not sure a special election is really fair. Now the candidate who followed the law has to go out and raise more money hit the campaign trail and basically start all over again.
I was attempting to be very careful with the order in which I laid out my questions, saving what I think is the most important for last: citizens who don’t have representation.
And one of the reason I have my spurs up on this one: Louisville is like most cities that are the largest in their state: we produce the highest tax revenue of all the cities/counties. The last time I looked we only received about thirty eight cents back for every dollar we pump into the state coiffeurs. And there are some huge/expensive initiatives on the table that will impact every citizen of our city.
We are in the process of building a new ‘state of the art’ ($350 million) arena and it’s now being held up because of the funding proposal. Those representatives outside of the Louisville area want the majority of funding to come locally and the local rep’s are saying the state should pony up the majority of funding. Along with several other leading business and economic leaders I happen to agree as well that you need to take care of your “financial heart”.
However, because a candidate and/or their party failed to take responsibility before the election and have subsequently stonewalled the process, we are missing a local representative who should be in there arguing/pressing flesh to help drive the point home that “what’s good for Louisville is good for the rest of the state”.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Oct 13 2005, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE
Are you placing the blame on the citizens? You seem to agree that it's "a punch in the face" to them, but seem pretty unaffected by that. You can interpret the election results as meaning two things:
1) a majority preferred Seum Stephenson
2) a majority opposed Woodward
I have a hard time ignoring the fact that a majority opposed Woodward, but we are supposed to give her the election anyway. If Seum Stephenson is unqualified, so be it, and I could accept Woodward temporarily, but I think there should be a special election to let the voters truly decide.
1) a majority preferred Seum Stephenson
2) a majority opposed Woodward
I have a hard time ignoring the fact that a majority opposed Woodward, but we are supposed to give her the election anyway. If Seum Stephenson is unqualified, so be it, and I could accept Woodward temporarily, but I think there should be a special election to let the voters truly decide.
Yes, I am holding the electorate partially responsible for what happened. And I am holding the local media responsible as well. Look, electing a representative for you requires more than reading the flyer they leave on your windshield at the supermarket parking lot, and watching a few commercials. If you can't take the time to find out more about your politician than the soundbites offered in an ad, you deserve the representation you get.
Now, I'm not saying that every citizen should be required to personally make sure that all of the election laws are being followed to a "T", but where were the people who should have been able to do this for us in this instance? The newspapers, and TV stations and news radio? Nobody, in a 3 to 6 month election campaign process thought to wonder how she could be qualified for an elected position in Kentucky, while she holds a primary residence in another state?
As for the "special election" - sorry, not even close. Seum-Stephenson would have to re-establish residency in Kentucky, and that would mean living full time in in the state for a proscribed period of time. Perhaps as long as a year, depending on the law. You really want to give her a pass, and allow her to run again in a year, when someone else (who was qualified, by the way) has been in the position, and doing the job for that long?
Sorry, that doesn''t wash with me. She screwed up. It happens. So she takes her lumps now, and can run again in four years.
It can hardly be said that the people "can't take the time to find out more about [their] politician than the soundbites offered in an ad", or that they did nothing more than "reading the flyer they leave on your windshield at the supermarket parking lot", when even the local media was unaware of the situation.
Personally, I don't care a bit about either candidates' rights or whether they "deserve" the election. I do feel like the electorate was left in the dark, without any reasonable way to know that the popular candidate was unqualified. A special election is called for. And if Seum Stephenson is banned from running in that election, so be it.
QUOTE(jaellon @ Oct 24 2005, 05:08 PM)
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Oct 13 2005, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE
Are you placing the blame on the citizens? You seem to agree that it's "a punch in the face" to them, but seem pretty unaffected by that. You can interpret the election results as meaning two things:
1) a majority preferred Seum Stephenson
2) a majority opposed Woodward
I have a hard time ignoring the fact that a majority opposed Woodward, but we are supposed to give her the election anyway. If Seum Stephenson is unqualified, so be it, and I could accept Woodward temporarily, but I think there should be a special election to let the voters truly decide.
1) a majority preferred Seum Stephenson
2) a majority opposed Woodward
I have a hard time ignoring the fact that a majority opposed Woodward, but we are supposed to give her the election anyway. If Seum Stephenson is unqualified, so be it, and I could accept Woodward temporarily, but I think there should be a special election to let the voters truly decide.
Yes, I am holding the electorate partially responsible for what happened. And I am holding the local media responsible as well. Look, electing a representative for you requires more than reading the flyer they leave on your windshield at the supermarket parking lot, and watching a few commercials. If you can't take the time to find out more about your politician than the soundbites offered in an ad, you deserve the representation you get.
Now, I'm not saying that every citizen should be required to personally make sure that all of the election laws are being followed to a "T", but where were the people who should have been able to do this for us in this instance? The newspapers, and TV stations and news radio? Nobody, in a 3 to 6 month election campaign process thought to wonder how she could be qualified for an elected position in Kentucky, while she holds a primary residence in another state?
As for the "special election" - sorry, not even close. Seum-Stephenson would have to re-establish residency in Kentucky, and that would mean living full time in in the state for a proscribed period of time. Perhaps as long as a year, depending on the law. You really want to give her a pass, and allow her to run again in a year, when someone else (who was qualified, by the way) has been in the position, and doing the job for that long?
Sorry, that doesn''t wash with me. She screwed up. It happens. So she takes her lumps now, and can run again in four years.
It can hardly be said that the people "can't take the time to find out more about [their] politician than the soundbites offered in an ad", or that they did nothing more than "reading the flyer they leave on your windshield at the supermarket parking lot", when even the local media was unaware of the situation.
Personally, I don't care a bit about either candidates' rights or whether they "deserve" the election. I do feel like the electorate was left in the dark, without any reasonable way to know that the popular candidate was unqualified. A special election is called for. And if Seum Stephenson is banned from running in that election, so be it.
While I certainly agree with you that the local media were not involved in a cover-up of the fact that Stephenson wasn't qualified by residence, it does not necessarily follow that the information was hard to find.
I think, more likely, is that the media in this instance was simply either understaffed, or lazy, or maybe even both. For instance, in my neck of the woods, it's not at all unusual to see the same field reporter covering two or three stories in a nightly newscast. A county commission hearing, a school board meeting, and a side-bar, human interest story from the local university.
Give that level of distraction, perhaps due to personel cutbacks in an effort to remain profitable or competitive, it's quite possible that the station or newspaper simply doesn't have the manpower any longer to do more than show up, edit a few sound-bites, and read off the prepared press memo. Who knows?
As for a special election, I fail to follow your reasoning here. Again, the lady, if a special election were to be held tomorrow, would still be ineligible to run, because she has to be a resident for at least a year, if memory serves. If that's truly the case, do you really want to hold the position vacant for that length of time? If not, and you have the next, actually qualified candidate in office, is it fair to tell them, "sorry, we know the election is supposed to be every four years, but because we want to appear "fair" to the unqualified candidate, you're going to have to run again next year"?
No sir, I'm sorry. Let her come back to the state, legally establish residency, find or continue in whatever job she has now, and try again in the next election cycle. She broke the rules, whether intentionally or not, and she has to stand up and take personal responsibility for that. Anything less is both unfair to the candidate who did follow all the rules and laws, and is hypocritical to boot.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Oct 25 2005, 05:45 PM)
As for a special election, I fail to follow your reasoning here. Again, the lady, if a special election were to be held tomorrow, would still be ineligible to run, because she has to be a resident for at least a year, if memory serves. If that's truly the case, do you really want to hold the position vacant for that length of time? If not, and you have the next, actually qualified candidate in office, is it fair to tell them, "sorry, we know the election is supposed to be every four years, but because we want to appear "fair" to the unqualified candidate, you're going to have to run again next year"?
Who says the special election would have to be held in a year? Generally they can be held in just a few months. I think most areas have other elections in April or May. Granted 6 months is still a long time to be unrepresented.
Now the question I would like to ask is, what is the law in regards to an office being empty due to death, inability to serve, etc. I know in many states if an office becomes empty between elections the legislature or governor can appoint someone to fill the office until the next election or until a special election.
I don't know if Kentucky has a similar law but I would think they should. In any case unless appointed by that process I would oppose Woodward getting the office even if Stephenson is declared ineligible, which I think she should be. Woodward lost the election. Period.
Now, as to the Democrats not breaking the law I think that in this case the Democrats get the benefit of being the "good guys" and get to be seen as upholding the law as opposed to those nasty Republicans who are obviously playing party politics.
However, can you honestly say that if the roles were reversed that the Democrats would be any better? I don't, but maybe I am just getting too cynical. However I look at government on the federal level and see that exact thing happening. It seems like on every bill I hear about the voting is lock step with the party line.
Also I think it is very suspicious about the timing of the revelation by Woodward. While it could have been happenstance that the issue was discovered on the eve of the election, the odds of that happening aren't that good. It seems like Woodward was holding it back as her ace in the hole if things didn't seem to be going her way. Now I have absolutely no proof of this but my own cynical nature but hey, politics aren't for the nice people.
Is this a case of a clearly unqualified candidate and her party attempting to circumvent the system? If not, what is it?
It would appear so.
Does a political party hold some element of responsibility by ensuring their candidates meet all qualifications?
Definitely
What should be done here, disregard the state constitution, the judges ruling and hold a special election?
I am not quiet sure what you meant by this. Are you stating that holding a special election would be violating the state constitution and the judges ruling? Since you did not post more about the judges ruling I can only go by what you said. It appears that the judge only said that Stephenson wasn't eligible. Unless stated other wise it would appear that the filling of the post was not addressed. Even if it was the judge could not force them to accept Woodward as you stated that the Senate can “judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of it’s members.”
While it is twisting it to let them use it to confirm Stephenson, it would not be twisting it for them to use it to reject Woodward.
Upon further research I found the following:
"A court has ruled Stephenson, who got the most votes, ineligible because she didn't meet residency requirements, and the state election board has certified Woodward as the winner. " http://www.kypost.com/2004/12/31/women123104.html
This changes nothing as the Senate can still reject Woodward and indeed has apparently from your posting.
I don't think they should have accepted Stephenson but they would appear to be fine in rejecting Woodward.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Oct 25 2005, 05:45 PM)
As for a special election, I fail to follow your reasoning here. Again, the lady, if a special election were to be held tomorrow, would still be ineligible to run, because she has to be a resident for at least a year, if memory serves. If that's truly the case, do you really want to hold the position vacant for that length of time? If not, and you have the next, actually qualified candidate in office, is it fair to tell them, "sorry, we know the election is supposed to be every four years, but because we want to appear "fair" to the unqualified candidate, you're going to have to run again next year"?
Ah, I see where our confusion is coming from now.I have already conceded that Seum-Stephenson is unqualified. Although I offered an initial opinion that she should have been given the election, I now agree that she is ineligible for office.
What I have failed to make clear is that I think the Republicans should be allowed to put forth a different candidate. Seum-Stephenson is ineligible. Woodward lost the election. No legitimate candidate can be said to have won the majority of votes. In that case, a special election should be scheduled to allow Woodward (or a different Democratic candidate) and the Republican's choice of candidate (not Seum-Stephenson!) to run.
In the meantime, I don't object to allowing Woodward (or a delegate assigned by the Governor) to fill the position temporarily, so that the district in question maintains representation.
Also, I don't care a bit about being "fair" to the unqualified candidate. Being a representative is not a position that is "earned" or "deserved". I care about being fair to the electorate. Democracy is supposed to make a choice that satisfies the majority, but if Woodward were to win...democracy failed. The minority won. The majority lost. That is my primary motivation for calling for a special election, regardless of who actually runs in it.
QUOTE(jaellon @ Oct 26 2005, 10:45 AM)
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Oct 25 2005, 05:45 PM)
As for a special election, I fail to follow your reasoning here. Again, the lady, if a special election were to be held tomorrow, would still be ineligible to run, because she has to be a resident for at least a year, if memory serves. If that's truly the case, do you really want to hold the position vacant for that length of time? If not, and you have the next, actually qualified candidate in office, is it fair to tell them, "sorry, we know the election is supposed to be every four years, but because we want to appear "fair" to the unqualified candidate, you're going to have to run again next year"?
Ah, I see where our confusion is coming from now.I have already conceded that Seum-Stephenson is unqualified. Although I offered an initial opinion that she should have been given the election, I now agree that she is ineligible for office.
What I have failed to make clear is that I think the Republicans should be allowed to put forth a different candidate. Seum-Stephenson is ineligible. Woodward lost the election. No legitimate candidate can be said to have won the majority of votes. In that case, a special election should be scheduled to allow Woodward (or a different Democratic candidate) and the Republican's choice of candidate (not Seum-Stephenson!) to run.
In the meantime, I don't object to allowing Woodward (or a delegate assigned by the Governor) to fill the position temporarily, so that the district in question maintains representation.
Also, I don't care a bit about being "fair" to the unqualified candidate. Being a representative is not a position that is "earned" or "deserved". I care about being fair to the electorate. Democracy is supposed to make a choice that satisfies the majority, but if Woodward were to win...democracy failed. The minority won. The majority lost. That is my primary motivation for calling for a special election, regardless of who actually runs in it.
In that case, I would maybe find that fair enough. A new, qualified candidate would be an acceptable alternative, provided a suitable representative could be appointed in the meantime.
My only point was that Stephenson was bound to be ineligible for a still rather extended period of time. She should have to wait for the next regular election cycle, and re-earn her credentials like anyone else.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Oct 26 2005, 11:23 AM)
Is this a case of a clearly unqualified candidate and her party attempting to circumvent the system? If not, what is it?
She may have believed she was qualified, but it's clear that Republican party members in the state legislature were trying to circumvent their state constitution's requirement. That's sad. I wouldn't want to have my own party's candidate take the office, if she wasn't legally qualified to have it. The clause which gives the houses the oversight to determine the qualifications, states that they may determine these only where they aren't explicitly stated in the same document. Her residency requirements were explicitly stated.
QUOTE
Does a political party hold some element of responsibility by ensuring their candidates meet all qualifications?
Both the party and the candidate have this responsibility to the voters. But also the election officials have some responsibility to keep unqualified candidates off the ballot.
QUOTE
Is it safe to assume that since Suem Stephenson disregarded the law, or didn’t pay attention to the law in her bid for a senate seat that she wouldn’t be an effective legislator? How can you set law when you ignore those already in place or try to bend them in you favor?
The simple residency qualification can become very complex in practice, especially for people living near state borders and having residences in both states. The two states may have had conflicting laws on licenses and taxation. I suspect many very intelligent people would need an attorney to advise them of whether or not they were qualified to run for office. And even then they might be told incorrectly. She can and may still be an effective legislator.
QUOTE
What should be done here, disregard the state constitution, the judges ruling and hold a special election?
If the constitution permits it, I think they should call for a special election.
QUOTE
What can be done to prevent this from occurring again, possibly in your state?
The parties and election departments should investigate the declared candidates to be certain they are qualified before adding their names to the ballot.
QUOTE
Who should be currently representing the 37th district?
Woodward. At least until after the special election.
The shocking thing is that voting was along party lines. Just as the Supreme Court decision that put George W. in the White House was along political lines 5-4. It seems to me that it is more important that the rules of the election were obeyed than that my candidate wins. But apparently many of our leaders do not share that view. I wonder how these people behave when they lose a sporting event due to a bad call by a referee. No matter how this comes out, there will be those on both sides insisting that the other side tried to steal the election.
On to the questions:
I would say that it most definitely is. It's a shame that the party wouldn't resort to finding someone who at least met residency requirements, I doubt it would've been that hard to do. In fairness, both parties do that to some extent. My own congressman had homes in two legislative districts, but claimed the smaller lake-vacation home in my area as his primary home...yeeeeeeeeahhhhhh.
Usually parties will do background checks and check to make sure everything is in order so that money isn't wasted on a candidate like this who might not hold office, even after such great lengths to be seated. I believe that the secretary of state and attorney general have an obligation to enforce the standard here. Obviously, the concern has been brought up and that these two state constitional officers need to do their jobs.
They ought to take this thing to the state supreme court and higher if necessary. Thank goodness for checks and balances.
Perhaps lengthening residency requirements, as well as to specifically state that you have to have a license, pay taxes, and other local activities at the given residence.
The former representative should be seated and a special election held for her seat without the winner, who is disqualified for not having the necessary requirements to represent the district.
QUOTE
Is this a case of a clearly unqualified candidate and her party attempting to circumvent the system? If not, what is it?
I would say that it most definitely is. It's a shame that the party wouldn't resort to finding someone who at least met residency requirements, I doubt it would've been that hard to do. In fairness, both parties do that to some extent. My own congressman had homes in two legislative districts, but claimed the smaller lake-vacation home in my area as his primary home...yeeeeeeeeahhhhhh.
QUOTE
Does a political party hold some element of responsibility by ensuring their candidates meet all qualifications?
Usually parties will do background checks and check to make sure everything is in order so that money isn't wasted on a candidate like this who might not hold office, even after such great lengths to be seated. I believe that the secretary of state and attorney general have an obligation to enforce the standard here. Obviously, the concern has been brought up and that these two state constitional officers need to do their jobs.
QUOTE
What should be done here, disregard the state constitution, the judges ruling and hold a special election?
They ought to take this thing to the state supreme court and higher if necessary. Thank goodness for checks and balances.
QUOTE
What can be done to prevent this from occurring again, possibly in your state?
Perhaps lengthening residency requirements, as well as to specifically state that you have to have a license, pay taxes, and other local activities at the given residence.
QUOTE
Who should be currently representing the 37th district?
The former representative should be seated and a special election held for her seat without the winner, who is disqualified for not having the necessary requirements to represent the district.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.