We Took a Vote and Decided to Ignore the Law

In another stunning example of Republicans abandoning ethical standards they once used to beat Democrats over the head, Kentucky Republicans are getting ready to seat a State Senator who was elected in violation of the state's Constitutional residency requirements.

Dana Seum (rhymes with "Slime") Stephenson is the daughter of Democrat-turned-Republican State Senator Dan Seum, who is the kind of era-gone-by throwback that makes state government in Kentucky the retropolitical sitcom it often is.

The day before Stevenson's hotly contested election, her opponent, Virginia Woodward, filed a complaint claiming that Stephenson hadn't lived in the state for the previous six years, as required by the state's Constitution.  It turns out that for three of the previous six years, while she maintained property in Kentucky, she had voted, paid taxes and declared her legal residence to be across the Ohio River in Indiana.  Oops!

After losing the election, Woodward filed suit.  The courts took one look at the record and another look at the State Constitution, issued an opinion that was the legal equivalent of "Duh?" and declared Woodward the winner. 

The Republican Party is, of course, the party of the Rule of Law, so it was surprising to those who haven't paying attention the last few years when the Republican-controlled State Senate -- including Dana Seum Stephenson's loving father, Danny Seum -- decided that it might just install Stephenson into office desite the court's ruling. 

Republicans at the national level have, of course, abandoned the political principles that got them into the majority, and Kentucky Republicans seem not to want to be left behind in this quest to out Rostenkowski Rostenkowsi. Ernie Fletcher, the first Republican Governor of Kentucky in nearly 4,000 years, used his Bully Pulpit to weigh in on the idea that a Republican majority in the State Senate can simply ignore the State Constitution. 

You remember Fletcher: He last made national news when he flew into restricted airspace before President Reagan's funeral, causing an emergency evacuation of the Capitol Building.  The whole state of Kentucky blushed in embarrassment over that, and big-city cartoonists went to town drawing panels showing Fletcher's plane as the Beverly Hillbillies' broken down truck, flying through the air. Here's what Fletcher had to say about the relationship between state law and elections:

The fact that a majority of voters supported Republican Dana Seum Stephenson should be considered in the controversy over the 37th District state Senate race, Gov. Ernie Fletcher said yesterday.

"The voters have expressed their desire, and, you know, I think when the voters express their desire that it ought to be recognized and acknowledged," Fletcher said.

In other words: Screw it; we've got the power.

The justification for this lawlessness is previous lawlessness by Democrats, of course.  Dems, many years ago, did approximately the same thing, earning Republican scorn and cementing the image that they were hopelessly corrupt, which is one of the reasons Fletcher is in power.  The Republican game is to bitch about the morals of the Other Guys and then, once in power, adopt those morals as their own. 

At this point, it remains to be seen what the State Senate is going to do.  Stephenson has filed a petition with the State Senate to overrule the court and State Constitution.  Woodward has promised she's going to show up for work on the first day of the Senate session.  Dan Seum, Stephenson's father, has promised to abstain from voting on the subject, but is no doubt working behind the scenes for the good of his party. 

The smart money is betting that Kentucky Republicans will adopt their own version of the DeLay rule saying, basically, that ethics and rule of law are for Democrats, not Republicans.

Comments

[Tanker]

We're going through a similar problem with the Mayoral race here in SD. First, on your topic:
- I agree that, not meeting the requirements, she should not have been on the ballot, and probably shouldn't be installed.
- I disagree that the loser of the election should now win. If you have an invalid candidate, then you have an invalid election.
- Why the HELL did it wait until 1 day before the election (or after) for a suit to be filed? Was this info not available? Yon loser's election staff needs a spanking.
- Barring any legislative remedy, the courts must now weigh the injustice of an invalid winning candidate vs. the costs and logistical issues of a new election. Neither is a good solution, yet neither is letting someone who didn't win the election server.

In San Diego, it's slightly different, as there is conflicting election law on the books. The City Charter says "only top 2 candidate's from the primary", effectively eliminating write-ins. Election law and 25 years of precedent have allowed write-ins. Luckily, the write-in candidate didn't get enough to win (just enough to screw another candidate out of a shot to win), so the court battles were swift and both the winner and "legal" candidate (from both sides of the law) was installed as Mayor.

As an aside, ya might have gone a little overboard on the Red v. Blue name-calling in this one. It's easy to see that "we're" in the wrong on this one, just point it out, say it's wrong, and keep your dignity.

[Tanker]

Bah! Commas. Can't live with em, can't use em right. That'll teach me not to review a post.