Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Nov. 5, 2012 | 8:01 p.m.
Judge rules candidate ineligible
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
KSNV reports on a judge's ruling on Monday, Nov. 5, 2012, that invalidates candidate Andrew Martin from running for Assembly seat District 9.
Andrew Martin
On the eve before the election, a Clark County judge ruled an Assembly candidate is ineligible for office because he did not live in the district he is running in, according to media reports.
The ruling, with ballots already printed and voting machines programmed, not to mention a large portion of the district already having voted, tosses into turmoil the seat, which has a Democratic voter registration edge.
Andrew Martin is a Democrat and former member of the state’s Economic Forum, which projects the state's tax revenue for two years.
KLAS-TV reported that District Court Judge Rob Bare said: "He may not be a candidate for Assembly District 9."
The judge saw video evidence that Martin spent nights at another house outside the district, according to the report.
In a written statement, Martin vowed to challenge the ruling.
“I disagree with the decision made regarding my case and I will be appealing this ruling," he said. "Tomorrow, I am going to win my election so I can represent my neighbors in Assembly District 9."
The Nevada Secretary of State’s office didn’t immediately respond to calls for comment. But state law says that if a candidate is disqualified after ballots are printed, election officials “must post a sign at each polling place” in the district “informing voters that the person is disqualified from entering upon the duties of office.”
The judgment is the result of a legal challenge filed by Martin’s opponent, Republican Kelly Hurst. Hurst hired a private investigator in mid-September to follow Martin, after hearing rumors about his residency, said Assemblyman Pat Hickey, R-Reno, the leader of the GOP caucus.
The legal challenge was filed in early October, but was delayed after Democrats challenged a judge.
Hickey called on Martin, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment, to give up his candidacy.
“The only honorable thing for him is to resign his seat now,” Hickey said, noting he could be facing perjury charges.
Hickey said they would be holding a press conference in the southwest Las Vegas district Tuesday morning and have individuals at all the polling places “informing people of the judge’s ruling.”
A new low in NV politics. and the the night before voting? Really Judge?
Don't blame the judge.
The Democrats via legal motions attempted to delay the judge's ruling after the election.
It is not the judge's fault that the evidence strongly points to the fact that the candidate has not stay even for one night for the last 30 days or so in his home that is in the district.
That is the candidate's fault.
Another corrupt Democrat trying to cheat to get in office. Thank goodness he has been stopped. Funny that his Chevy Volt busted him.
The Sun left this irony out of the story---he was busted while charging his electric car at his house outside the district.
Delicious irony ignored by the Las Vegas Sun.
Another corrupt Democrat? WHO allowed his name on the ballot without checking these things out "first" ? NO ONE ... on either side picked up on this ? And, KELLY HURST....she's not innocent.She let this slide until the VERY last second.She made SURE her opponent was blown out of the water with no chance of staying on the ballot or getting someone on. So who is to blame?? I'll tell you...BOTH OF THEM, She's NO better then he is.I'm not sure which has been DIRTIER...the local elections or the Nationals.This has been a TOTAL DISGRACE on both sides. So don't start jumping up and down for your republicans....they are just as dirty as the rest of them. They need to get rid of the super pac's....this has only made the race ALL ABOUT THE MONEY,nothing more. We're almost down to the wire and then this will be all over.Women have the most to loss here today,I wonder if they understand that.
In response to Babyboomer's comments:
1) Kelly Hurst is a he, not a she.
2) The original complaints, according to news accounts, were originally filed by Hurst's campaign about a month ago -- it was the court that decided to have the hearings and make the rulings the day before the election.
Then again, that's what happens when you actually have to go looking for information and details on the case, rather than relying on a Sun article that merely cites other sources without actually doing any real work.
LOL! We may be last in everything else but we must be first in stupid politicians by a wide margin.
Hurst filed the legal challenge on October 2nd, 2012 and asked to have the matter heard on shortened time. The Hearing was set for October 11th. However Martin challenged Judge Nancy Allf, who voluntarily recused, thereby delaying the hearing until Friday, November 2nd. Judge Bare conducted a Hearing but allowed Martin to have an Evidentiary Hearing at his request, which was set for the next judicial day, Monday November 5th. I have no dog in this fight; I simply went to the Court's website to read the case history.
It appears the assertion that Hurst unduly delayed the process until the day before Election Day is factually wrong.