Kentucky Senate Seats Disputed Candidate [ didn't live in district required time]

AP via yahoo ^ | Jan 7, 2005 | MARK R. CHELLGREN

[Mike Fieschko]

The Republican candidate in a disputed election was sworn in Friday as the newest member of the Kentucky Senate, even though a judge ruled she did not meet the state's residency requirements. One GOP senator threatened to resign in protest.

AP Photo

Dana Seum Stephenson lived in Indiana from 1997 to 2000, but the Kentucky Constitution requires that senators live in the state for at least six years before taking office. Also, Stephenson is 23, and the constitution says senators be at least 30.

Brushing aside such concerns, the Republican-dominated Senate swore in Stephenson and defeated along party lines a committee's recommendation that Democrat Virginia Woodward be declared the winner of the Louisville district.

Senate President David Williams said he was confident the Senate had the power to determine its own membership.

"No court in the land could overturn that," he said.

On Election Day, Stephenson received 22,772 votes to Woodward's 21,750 votes, according to unofficial returns. At a judge's urging, the State Board of Elections certified Woodward the winner, and she took the oath of office on Jan. 1. But Stephenson asked the Senate to decide the race.

Democrats protested the decision to seat Stephenson. Senate floor leader Ed Worley called it "the greatest single act of pure, raw, ugly politics as I have ever seen take place in our Capitol."

Woodward had challenged Stephenson's residency on the eve of the November election, but the case was not heard in court until after the votes were cast.

Republican Sen. Bob Leeper, a member of the committee that recommended Woodward be declared the winner, proposed a special election to fill the seat. When Williams refused the request, Leeper said in a breaking voice that he had "tolerated a great deal up here" and threatened to resign. Leeper then left the Senate floor.

Stephenson's father is also a Republican member of the Senate.

[Bluegrass Conservative]

This sounds like a circular argument. Maybe I'm just slow late on a Friday afternoon, but if someone is actually elected, then what does the Senate need to decide? And who decides what "actually elected" is, anyway? The Senate? A Court? Phyllis George?

I think it would make more sense with some of the facts of this case:

1) Virginia Woodward filed suit over Stephenson's residency status the weekend before the election.

2) Absentee voting had already started taking place.

3) People went ahead and voted on the race on Election Day. Dana Stephenson won.

4) The judge ruled weeks later that Dana was ineligible.

5) Since Dana had already won the election numberwise, the Senate was the body to rule on her eligibility, not the courts.

6) Phyllis George no longer lives here, thank God. Last I knew, she was a New Yorker.

[Imal]

Why are Republicans acting like Democrats?

[Bluegrass Conservative]

Saying "it's up to the Senate to decide what the Constitution means" and then letting them decide something which is the opposite of what the Constitution says is wrong.

My opinion is that Dana was not a resident of Kentucky in those years in question. However, she did make a compelling argument that she had dual-residency. The Republicans in the Senate argued that as well and enough of them bought it. If she did have dual-residency, that may not be unconstitutional.

[Bluegrass Conservative]

I agree. Why do they feel above the law?

It's a little more complex than that. They don't feel above the law, but feel that the constitution would allow for dual-residency, even though that is not mentioned. The Democrats argued she was an Indiana resident, the Republicans argued she had dual residency in Kentucky and Indiana. Both sides had strong points to back up their views.

[Bluegrass Conservative]

This is absolutely ridiculous. This person shouldn't have been allowed to run in the first place.

Well, that may or may not be true. If she did have dual-residency, she probably was well within her right to run. But, even if she didn't, Virginia Woodward should have filed suit long before voting actually began, and probably even before they were certified as the nominees after the primaries.

[Dems_R_Losers]

It's really hard for me to believe the Democrats let Ms. Stephenson stay on the ballot unchallenged, after their successful challenge of Hunter Bates last year (for those non-Kentuckians, Bates was the original running mate of now-Gov. Ernie Fletcher, but Democrats challenged his residency and won - Bates was chief of staff to Sen. Mitch McConnell and the court ruled he was a resident of Virginia and threw him off the ballot). So I don't have much sympathy for them on this one.

OTOH, I also think Ms. Stephenson should have known better than to change her voting address to Indiana while in school; if she had any political ambition she should have been well aware of the state Constitution, and under the circumstances she should have waited another four years to run for the Senate. If she had retained her voting priveleges in Kentucky, there would never have been a question about her prior residency. So I would not feel much sympathy for her if her election were voided.

Nobody comes out of this one smelling like a rose.

[Bluegrass Conservative]

Watch them

Well, I don't think they will either. There have been similar cases in Kentucky and the court has not overturned. And, across the nation there have been cases even more similar to this one, and the courts didn't overrule the body's ability to determine their own membership either.

[You Dirty Rats]

OK, that makes sense.

Determining qualifications for office should be done well before the election. Maybe Kentucky and other jurisdictions should set up a process for this. Certainly, waiting until the weekend before the election is bogus, particularly since the residency issue was not clear-cut.

As an example of a potential problem, George Romney ran for President in 1968, but he was born outside the USA to American parents. If he had won the nomination, then won the election but was challenged either right before or right after Election Day on the grounds that he wasn't "natural-born", and then the 'Rat House and Senate throw out his EVs and declare Humphrey the winner ... what then?

[deport]

Dana Seum Stephenson

[Bluegrass Conservative]

Bates was the original running mate of now-Gov. Ernie Fletcher, but Democrats challenged his residency and won . . .

Actually, it wasn't the Democrats that challenged Hunter Bates' residency. Officially, it was a college student at the University of Louisville. However, he was a pawn of Steve Nunn's campaign for Governor. Nunn was a candidate in the Republican primary. Bob Heleringer, Nunn's runningmate, even joined the suit to act as one of this kid's attorneys.

I also think Ms. Stephenson should have known better than to change her voting address to Indiana while in school . . .

Amen!!!

If she had retained her voting priveleges in Kentucky, there would never have been a question about her prior residency.

Actually, there might have still been questions. After all Hunter Bates owned a home in Kentucky and had always voted in Kentucky. He was only in Washington to serve as Senator McConnell's Chief of Staff.

[PokerGod]

No way in hell she is only 23.

Are you kidding me?

[Bluegrass Conservative]

No way in hell she is only 23. Are you kidding me?

Read on through the posts and you'll see that she's actually 33.

[PokerGod]

She's still 7 years younger than the required age.

How do you get around that one?

[Bluegrass Conservative]

She's still 7 years younger than the required age. How do you get around that one?

Please see post #30. She's 33, not 23 . . . three years beyond the required age.

[Dems_R_Losers]

Thanks for the corrections. Steve Nunn, why am I not surprised....still, the Dems made great sport about Bates' problem at the time, and IIRC later tried to claim that it was too late for Fletcher to replace him on the ballot...and it still was a vivid and recent enough example that you would think both parties would be checking residency of their opponents very carefully!

I believe Hunter Bates did also own a home and pay property taxes in Virginia. Same thing got Tom Daschle in trouble when it was revealed that he got a Washington, DC tax credit on his home there. I would assume that Ms. Stephenson was only a student in Indiana and did not own property or pay taxes there, only voted. If she did, she has an even weaker case than Bates did.

[Rodney King]

Dana lived in Kentucky before moving across the Ohio River to Indiana for school. Despite living in Indiana and voting there, she kept her house in Kentucky and spent quite a bit of time there as well. Her argument has been one of dual residency.

I used to be involved with politics in CT. There were a few instances where we researched challenging the residency of certain individuals. I talked to lawyers and other on the subject. In CT, it basically came down to that your residency is whatever you say it is, and so it is very hard to challenge someones residency. Same thing happend when Cheney ran for VP. He was running from Wyoming (the constitution prevents the Prez and VP from being from same state) even though he was by any normal standard a resident of Texas.

[doug from upland]

This is not good. I don't want to be the party that cheats. Come on, GOP, follow the law.

[PhiKapMom]

When she filed for office would have been the time to protest residency. Little late now and do not see a problem of her being seated since she was permitted on the ballot and won the election. To protest now after the election, is ludicrous.

[fuquadukie]

eeeewwwwww. Skank.

[doublecansiter]

Hi Rats, were Romney's parents American citizens? If they
were then he would have met the constitutional requirements
for being a "natural born" citizen.

Mike