Matt Yost sends message to supporters

Matt Yost sent this email to supporters today after the Idaho Supreme Court declined to hear his case. Matt filed suit after Secretary of State Ben Ysursa's office said he couldn't run against District 15 state Sen. John Andreason because he wasn't a registered voter in the district for a full year before filing for office.

The Idaho Supreme Court responded today and they did not act as we had hoped. We purposefully bypassed the typical legal route through the lower courts in order to receive a speedy legal response that would result in a final opinion putting to rest forever whether voter registration for one year is a prerequisite for legislative candidacy. We needed a speedy opinion in order to avoid any further prejudice the Secretary of State's decision has already caused the Yost for Idaho campaign. Unfortunately for the people of Idaho the Supreme Court chose not to act. The decision to not decide leaves the Yost for Idaho campaign without an adequate remedy since my legal team cannot assure a decision from a lower court for months, which would still be subject to appeal by whatever party lost that decision. Because it is unlikely that many would donate to a cause with an uncertain future, I do not feel that we can raise adequate campaign funding and fight a legal battle. Nor do I feel comfortable asking for money under these circumstances.

The Secretary of State's interpretation of the Idaho Constitution, imposing a one year voter registration prerequisite on a legislative candidate, is not published anywhere. After reading the Court's Order, you will see that the court refused to address this issue, preferring I bring the case before to the District Court first. Unfortunately, I have little incentive to take such an action. Doing so will not result in reinstating my placement on the ballot before November. Thus the Secretary of State's interpretation will continue without contest. I find it even more unfortunate that the court did not direct the Secretary of State to post the qualifications for candidacy more clearly in the future. By peremptorily disqualifying numerous candidates, the Secretary of State perpetuates and inflates the problem, leaving several hopeful candidates without recourse, since a legal challenge won't result in a final opinion until after the election is held. Solely on the matter of clarification, I find the Court's ruling to be disheartening. At the very least I'd hoped my efforts would provide clarity in the law so that others preparing to run would not be blindsided by a determination that seems almost arbitrary. The real losers in this ruling are the citizens of Idaho who are denied choices for whom to vote by the actions, or inactions as the case may be, of our government.

Matt, thank you for your efforts in trying to offer District 15 voters a choice this fall. We're sure this won't be the last we see of you. Meanwhile, District 15 voters can get behind Greg Funk, a young Democratic veteran who is challenging Max Black for House Seat B.

Comments

[ajonesin]

An important lesson in registering to vote as soon as you move.

[Julie in Boise]

Good point, AJ, especially for folks who have any thoughts of running for office.

If you are already registered to vote, you do need to re-register if you change your name and/or address. You can do it at the polls on E-day (May 27 or November 4) by showing proof of address, but it's much easier to just get 'er done before that.

http://www.idahovotes.gov/vinfo.htm

[Sisyphus]

You have to wait 30 days after you move before you can register.

There's been a ruling in North Idaho by a district court actually removing municipal office holders after they were purged from the voter rolls. So not only do you have to register to be a candidate, you have to be vigilant after achieving office to make sure you aren't one of the people who are routinely removed from the voter rolls. This seems absurd.

[Julie in Boise]

Sisyphus, that is indeed some wacky BS.

Do you know: If you are (as I am) a voter who almost never misses any election of any sort, wouldn't that pretty well immunize you against being purged from the rolls? Are there instances of regular voters getting purged?

I'm just wondering. I know there have been instances of voter roll purges in other states to try and eliminate voters of color, poor people, etc. ... that is, "likely Democrats."

One would assume that office holders are regular voters, but one might assume this in peril.