Contrary to today's Seattle Times report that
King County Elections Director Sherril Huff is eligible to run in the Feb. 3 election to keep her job, the county Canvassing Board ruled Thursday.The Canvassing Board ruled no such thing, at least not in their written ruling. The Canvassing Board only agreed that Huff is currently a resident and validly registered voter in King County. But that wasn't seriously in dispute. The main question regarding Huff's eligiblity is whether she was a King County resident at the time that she filed on Dec. 11.
Clifford asked the canvassing board to determine the date when Huff became a King County resident. The Canvassing Board ruling declines to make that determination. Nor does it consider the question of Huff's eligibility as a candidate.
But Huff apparently admitted that she wasn't living in King County when she filed:
...Huff said, she'd moved into her new home Dec. 16 or 17.Geez. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 16, 2009 12:57 PM | Email This
Anyone who thinks the law will decide this doesn't understand where we live. No one in a position of authority in this government is there unless they have demonstrated their loyalty to the real King, and this canvassing board, or any other authority with jurisdiction over this situation, will not let the law get in the way of seating the King's choice.
And if I'm wrong on this, it will be for a reason none of us peasants will ever be privy to.
Speaking of conflicts of interest, I wonder if Huff has recused herself from her Director's position while her department administers this election? You don't think that as director she might have influence in a race where the candidate that simply gets the most votes wins? Six candidates in a race with nothing else on the ballot that could be won by someone with 17% of the vote? How hard would it be for professionals like Sims and Huff to steal this one?
Posted by: Reality on January 16, 2009 02:00 PMBecause that was the crieteria established by the founding fathers of this Nation as outlined in the U.S. Constitution....you may have heard of them/it...not that it matters as Obama did an end around it anyway despite being a "consitutional professor".
inre: Huff - I second Al @ 2
Posted by: Rick D. on January 16, 2009 02:41 PMFAIL.
Posted by: A. Non on January 16, 2009 02:58 PMIn America, a regular citizen has all the rights that a natural born citizen does except one as defined by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers feared that a president could have split loyalties to other countries if born, or raised in another country, so they defined one right for natural born citizens that regular citizens would not have.
This issue is relevant today, because we all know there are cases before the Supreme Court challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president. Has Obama displayed loyalties to Indonesia where he attended an Indonesian-only school as a child? Not that I'm aware. Has he displayed a extraordinary interest in Kenya, though, where it has been alleged his paternal grandmother has said she witnessed his birth, and where his father lived? In fact, it has been reported that he was very involved in the campaign of failed Kenyan presidential candidate Raila Odinga in 2006.
Then there is the fact that he has a large family there in Kenya today, so concerns over loyalties extend even beyond natural born status. What would Obama do in a critical foreign policy decision that placed US interests at odds against the interests of so much family? What if it was a trivial decision, but one that would benefit his extensive Kenyan family? It's a silly point, but it does highlight why our Founding Fathers worked to minimize this threat to American interests.
Our Founding Fathers intentionally made a distinction between a regular citizen and a natural born citizen. And if people don't like it, then they can work to change the Constitution as is their right. But until that occurs, the Constitution is the law and even the Messiah shouldn't be immune from it. Just as the law must be honored here in Sims... I mean King County.
Posted by: Reality on January 16, 2009 03:56 PMMy point being, that once she is on the ballot there is no course. Also, if she wins the election the Second place candidate does not become the winner in any case, she is the actual winner (though it looks like she cannot serve).
Posted by: Doug on January 16, 2009 05:02 PMHundreds of millions of dollars reportedly used in the Obama campaign were raised from questionable sources, more than likely foreign.
ACORN reportedly registered thousands and thousands of people who are not eligible (non-citizens, the dead, duplicate voters, etc) to vote. ACORN is heavily backed by the Democrat Party.
Democrats have apparently stolen a senatorial election in Minnesota, much the same way they stole the governors race in our own state in 2004.
The rule of law is dying in America, as Democrats do whatever they please, with seemingly no repercussions.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 16, 2009 06:56 PMAnd if that was before Dec. 11th, does that make her eligible?
Come on folks, don't you think this Huff business is just a little silly?
Posted by: deadwood on January 16, 2009 07:17 PMWe seem to have so many election laws yet nobody has authority to enforce them. Unless a Republican violates one, then everyone seems to have jurisdiction.
Posted by: Vince on January 16, 2009 08:49 PMAnd if she rented like the rest of those that do she paid for all of December, making her a King County resident as of the December 1.
Stefan (and all the rest of King County voters) has good reason to distrust Huff, Simms and anybody else associated with the King County Dem machine. But this is not the issue to center on. It makes him look petty.
If Huff wins we all watch. Eventually a close election will come and the machine will once again pull a fast one. If we have been watching we will have a better chance of catching them with the evidence before the trial.
If Huff doesn't win lets hope the margin is wide.
Posted by: deadwood on January 16, 2009 10:32 PMUm. Call me crazy, but they appear to have ruled that In re Schoessler does not apply because that was a challenge to a right to serve as an elected. But ... that's what this is about.
If he filed it as a mere voter registration challenge, then perhaps it could be re-filed as an elected official residency challenge.
Fact is, you can claim 1st and Yesler as your residence with a mailing address at any nearby (or distant) MailBoxes'R'Us. Washington law allows US citizens to claim their parents' last Washington address as their residence, even if they were born in NY prior to the family sailing away, never to return. There are members of the military specifying addresses in KC that they haven't lived at in a decade.
In reality, Huff met the residency requirement once she proclaimed it, even if she never slept a night in her Rainier Beach rental. Even if she never rented it.
She could just as well have claimed Seward Park as her residence and had her mail delivered in Bremerton. It wouldn't be be politically correct, but I don't think her registration or candidacy could be successfully challenged
This is what people in King County, WA state, and the country have to decide. And it is applicable to a county sheriff's election right up to the presidency.
As of now residency requirements are a part of election law in the local election. The natural born citizen requirement is a part of the Constitution for the national election. If you don't want them on the books, or if they are effectively non-operable, then there is a process available to remove those statutes. But until then they must have meaning, through recognition and the will to obey them, with the incentive (threat) of enforcement as the means of implementation. Otherwise, you have anarchy.
Posted by: Interested Observer on January 19, 2009 07:22 AM