Posted on 12/03/2004 7:10:04 AM PST by Bluegrass Conservative
Election dispute heads to Senate Judge has ruled Democrat won
By Joseph Gerth and Elizabeth J. Beardsley The Courier-Journal
Dana Seum Stephenson will turn to the Republican-controlled state Senate in an effort to hold onto the 37th District seat she appeared to win in November.
But with a court having awarded the seat to her Democratic opponent, Virginia Woodward, the state could be headed for a constitutional crisis, Stephenson's lawyer said yesterday.
"I don't know what happens," Jim Milliman said. "Frankly, I think that the Supreme Court will do what courts have done in other states and say this isn't for the court to decide."
Woodward's lawyer, Jennifer Moore, said a constitutional crisis isn't necessary if Stephenson would follow the Jefferson Circuit Court ruling.
Stephenson won the election by 1,022 votes, but Jefferson Circuit Judge Barry Willett ruled last week that she did not meet the residency requirement in the Kentucky Constitution, making Woodward the "de facto" winner of the election.
The constitution requires state senators to be residents of Kentucky for six years before their election.
The race was thrown into question the day before the election when Woodward filed suit, asking a judge to disqualify Stephenson, who has lived in Southern Indiana for four of the past six years.
Stephenson bought a home in Jeffersonville, was licensed to drive there and voted as a Democrat in two elections. She claims, however, that she remained a resident of Kentucky because she always planned to return.
Stephenson allowed Tuesday's deadline for a court appeal of Willett's ruling to pass. She could not be reached yesterday.
Woodward said in an interview, "I am frankly puzzled she would challenge the decision by this or any means" because she doesn't meet the constitutional requirements.
Woodward also said the Senate should rise above politics and "decide this question based on what does the law say and what does the constitution say."
There is some precedent indicating residency isn't a hard and fast rule. In 1987 the Democratic House seated Republican Mae Hoover even though she wasn't a legal resident of the district she was elected to represent. A House committee found that the residency requirement was intended to ensure that officials have "a familiarity with the people and the area they represent" and that Hoover was familiar with the area.
Milliman said he planned to throw the case to the state Senate to decide because of a constitutional provision that gives houses of the General Assembly authority to "judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its members."
"We're going to take it to the Senate where it belongs, where it should have been filed in the first place," he said.
Moore, however, argues that Woodward's suit was a pre-election challenge and that courts have jurisdiction to decide such cases. Willett agreed with her.
A constitutional crisis would occur if the Senate determines that it has authority in the matter and the Kentucky Supreme Court decides it has the authority.
Robert Lawson, a constitutional law professor at the University of Kentucky, said courts traditionally avoid such constitutional crises, although he noted that in 2000, both the Florida Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court became embroiled in the presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore.
Senate President David Williams, a Republican, said in an interview Wednesday that the Senate won't shy away from the issue if it is brought before it.
"If anyone files an election contest case, we're going to hear it, because there is a constitutionally required separation of powers situation that you have there," he said.
"If a contest suit is filed after an election has been held, the constitution says that the Senate or the House shall be the judge of the returns, the election and qualifications of the members," he added.
Milliman said he plans to file a challenge with the Senate next week.
Under state law, between five and nine senators would be chosen by lot to look into the matter. They would make a recommendation to the full Senate.
Sen. Dan Seum, R-Louisville, who is Stephenson's father, said he would probably decline to serve if his name is drawn and would probably also abstain from voting on the matter.
Moore, Woodward's attorney, said she was troubled by Stephenson's decision to seek redress in the Republican Senate.
"I understand what they are going to do; I have to tell you I am extremely disappointed in Sen. Williams. I would expect him and the Republican Party to uphold the Kentucky Constitution and uphold the court's rulings," she said.
She still expects Woodward to prevail, she said. "Our plan is to attend her swearing-in party in January."
The reporters can be reached at jgerth@courier-journal.com and ebeardsley@courier-journal.com.
The exact thing was tried on Romney by the 'rats when he was running for governor with almost the exact same circumstances and it was laughed out of the 'rat dominated Election Board.
But wait! When the idiot voters of Missouri elected a dead man it wasn't the Republican runner up who went to the US Senate, it was an apointee of the Democratic Gov. Why is the court picking "de-facto winners". Why didn't these same rules apply to the widow Carnihan?
Isn't it funny how the liberals always want you to stop challenging them at the point they get a decision that works in THEIR favor. They're like little children.
Different rules for state and federal candidates.
Strangely enough, we explicitly know everyone's party affiliation except for Stephenson's. And what's up with that "and voted as a Democrat in two elections" line? From the context we have to assume she ran as a Republican but it sounds like she's a RINO at best (not that it should have any bearing on the outcome).
Given the eligibility challenge comeing post-election, IMHO the proper outcome is for the Senate to declare Stephenson ineligible to hold office and to hold a special election to allow the people to choose a qualified candidate. As someone once said, "second place is the first loser" and should remain so. This isn't a beauty pagent.
Stephenson is a Republican, and daughter of the Senate Republican Chair Dan Seum. Dan Seum was in the Senate as a Democrat for years, but switched in 1999 causing a tie in the State Senate. Later that year, another conservative Democrat, Bob Leeper, switched, giving the Republicans the majority in the State Senate for the first time in history.
Dan Seum is one of the more conservative members of the Kentucky General Assembly, despite recently being a registered Democrat. I would assume that his daughter shares his values and is definitely not a RINO.
That being said, I really believe she is clearly ineligible for this position. But I agree that Virginia Woodward should not get it by coming in second. You can't win by losing.
Even if gets to the point where the Kentucky Supreme Court rules against the Republicans and the Senate, they don't have to seat the Democrat. They can still opt to declare the seat vacant, since the winner was ostensibly ruled ineligible by the courts. The seat would then be filled subject to the provisions of Kentucky's constitution (appointment? special election?)
Kentucky requires a special election for vacant seats. By the way, just to note, after January the Kentucky Supreme Court will have a makeup of 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Chief Justice is Republican though.
All the more reason for the Senate to skip the whole thing and declare a vacancy. If the race was a close win for the Republican in a general election, then the Republican should take it handily in a special.
If a special election was held, they would immediately contest Stephenson's residency and prevail since she clearly did not meet the law's requirements.
Are you saying she's the only Republican in that District? There is no other candidate that could run? In a case like this the Kentucky Republicans are in a great position to solidify the seat and put an end to the controversy by running an appealing candidate with no residency doubts who will in a special.
To be honest, I don't know of many electable Republicans in that district. It's definitely not our strongest area and not many people were giving Dana much of a chance up until the last few weeks. The coattails of President Bush, Congresswoman Northup and the same-sex marriage amendment definitely helped her out big time.
I hope that if there is a vacant seat they can find someone who would be good. I can guarantee they could be well-financed. Just need someone with some type of electable appeal.
The only reason that the Dems got away with the Carnahan-Missouri "win" is because John Ashcroft is an ultimate gentleman and decided to not press the matter. The Republican-held Senate would have decided the matter and likely would have voted in Ashcroft's favor; he would be a US Senator today instead of a former Attorney General.
This problem should have been caught when she filed to run for election, not days before the voting. Once again, we pay someone to do a job that they can't be bothered doing.
No one is given the job of inspecting filing papers. If it is found out later that a person has misrepresented themselves on it, perjury charges can be brought against them. But someone has to bring the matter to the attention of the state, not the state bringing it to the attention of someone.
Then what is the point of filing requirements, other than to artificially control the election process?
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.