9 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, May 23, 2011 | 2:31 p.m.
In a scathing order filed Monday, Carson City Judge Todd Russell used unusually strong language to criticize Secretary of State Ross Miller’s decision for a “ballot royale” in a House special election and shredded the notion of deference in such matters to the state’s chief election officer.
Russell, though, acknowledged the governing special election statute is “ambiguous” and the “scant legislative history” is not helpful, yet he clearly reached the conclusion Miller was wrong by his own independent analysis of the murky law.
The 12-page order can be seen here
Some thoughts:
----Russell, in a footnote, says he did not have to consider any of the constitutional issues raised by the state GOP in its challenge. But if he had, he is “troubled” by Miller’s disparate treatment of independents and minor parties compared to the major parties. But aren’t they treated differently in regular elections?
Yes. Yes, they are.
----The GOP argued that, as Russell paraphrased it, Miller “went beyond the plain meaning of the statute” governing special elections, NRS 304.230. But a couple of pages later, Russell states declaratively: “NRS 304.230 is ambiguous.” He goes on to write that the legislative history is not helpful and the law “does not assist the Court in resolving this particular matter.” So he agrees with the Republicans that Miller went beyond the law’s plain meaning, but he then says that meaning is ambiguous.
Really?
----Russell finds that deference to the secretary of state and his interpretation of election law “is not absolute.”
I addressed that issue in a weekend post
But, strangely, when the judge first writes about the issue of deference he cites a case saying he can strike an interpretation of a statute “when a court determines that the agency interpretation conflicts with legislative intent.” But, as I said, later he says the legislative history is of no help, so how could he do so?
Here’s how:
What Russell has done is, as he put it, dispense with the secretary of state’ role in statute, decide that this is “purely a legal question” and decide to undertake “an independent review of Nevada’s election statutes.” Wow.
----The most compelling argument Russell alights on in his serpentine order is that the special election statute contains a reference to Chapter 293 of the NRS, which controls how general elections are conducted. So, the judge argues, the statutes can be harmonized by allowing parties to nominate as opposed to what he calls Miller’s more narrow reading, which “produces an unreasonable and absurd result.”
Harsh.
He also accuses Miller of “picking and choosing from different portions of the general election statute to support” his conclusion. “The Court is troubled by this method,” Russell wrote.
Harsher.
----Perhaps the most interesting language is when Russell writes that Miller’s interpretation would cause the Republican Party to “suffer irreparable harm.” Really? From Madame Irreparable Harm, Sharron Angle? It would be so bad that “major parties would be specifically excluded from any involvement in the designation and nomination process, for which compensatory relief is inadequate.”
Oh, the humanity!
I know the victorious parties get a hand in writing orders in such cases. But, my goodness, parts of this order do read like a political attack on Miller and a GOP manifesto.
On to the Supremes…..
The reason for the decision and the inclusion of the language in the order is simple: Todd Russell is a political prostitute for the Republican party who places party loyalty far above his sworn duty to make fair and unbiased rulings.
Ralston, AKA as The Voice of the Demcoratic Party, and his Democrat pals are saying this:
1) Law is vague
2) SOS is the king of the land and can publish any ruling that he desires
3) Instead of generating a rule that will help the people and is in line with other election processes, the SOS has created a rule to help the party and that is good
4) The Judge has no clue about the law at least not as much as a talking head that has never took one law class or issued one legal ruling or acted in a capacity of a lawyer his entire life
Sounds like an issue for the state supreme court to decide.
The success of the Republican caucus in stopping all tax increases could be the begining of the end of Horsford and Oceguera's political careers.
Horsford and Oceguera mismanaged their respective rolls as Majority Leader and Speaker. They tried to bully their union supporting agenda through the legislature and demagogued their Republican counter parts. They disregarded the will of the majority of Nevadans who pay taxes and are not members of unions.
This was after Horsford tried selling access to himself and all of his committee leaders for $25,000. Oceguera spent $35,000 of public funds for a private gym that goes unused.
Coincidently their Democrat redistricting plan has been gerrymandered to give them the greatest possibility of winning a Congressional seat.
UN-REAL !!
As a Conservative, I feel the judge was wrong. If Republicrats, Dumbocrats or any political party wants to shut down competition within its own ranks by hand-picking its candidates, that's fine with me. However, then do away with primary elections altogether; just hold general elections. The political parties should pay for choosing their candidates, not the taxpaying public. We should not be subsidizing political parties and we should not have to declare our political persuasions in order to register to vote. Who you or I favor politically is none of the state's business!
"Ralston, AKA as The Voice of the Demcoratic Party, and his Democrat pals are saying this:"
charges the man with an IQ of 3.
sounds like the judge is a republican. He should have recused himself instead of pretending to make an impartial decision.
Vegas_Tom you already shown that you are really clueless on one topic.
All you have working for your is two big fat lips on that face of yours that has absolutely an empty skull behind it.
I've read the law, and in my opinion it's the judge who should be ridiculed. He's just a Republican Party hack anyway. The Nevada Democratic Committee needs to target some money to take him out of office in his next bid for re-election.