Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Jennifer Brunner vs. Jon Husted

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Jennifer Brunner vs. Jon Husted

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 46 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #304240

    pez
    Participant

    If we actually look at the law ORC 3503.02(G)

    it states:

    (G) If a person removes from this state to engage in the services of the United States government, the person shall not be considered to have lost the person’s residence in this state during the period of such service, and likewise [b]should the person enter the employment of the state, the place where such person resided at the time of the person’s removal shall be considered to be the person’s place of residence.[/b]

    As long as he lived in Kettering (or that district) when he entered the House (2001) there’s no question about it. Unfortunately, Brunner chooses to make up (rather than look up) the law.

    #304241
    hugh59
    hugh59
    Participant

    I seem to recall that Ted Strickland had a similar problem when he was running for governor. His presence in his declared home district was questionable. There was a deadlocked vote of the county board of election and the tie-breaking vote was cast by Ken Blackwell.

    Blackwell voted that Strickland was a resident of his declared home county. If Blackwell had voted the other way, it might have forced disqualified Strickland from running for governor.

    Brunner appears to be too partisan to be trusted with higher office.

    #304242

    karenS
    Member

    According to the referenced Dispatch article:

    “Besides the provisions Husted has noted, Brunner pointed to a third that says ‘the place where the family of a married person resides shall be considered to be the person’s place of residence.'”

    So, it appears she wasn’t just making up rather than looking up the law.

    I can imagine that with so many conflicting laws governing how residence is determined that you have to take more than just the law into account, i.e., other factors that establish or disprove residency such as where his whole family lives and whether the utility records prove someone lived in his Kettering residence, both of which seem to point to his living somewhere other than there.

    #304243

    pez
    Participant

    karenS wrote >>
    According to the referenced Dispatch article:

    “Besides the provisions Husted has noted, Brunner pointed to a third that says ‘the place where the family of a married person resides shall be considered to be the person’s place of residence.'”

    So, it appears she wasn’t just making up rather than looking up the law.
    I can imagine that with so many conflicting laws governing how residence is determined that you have to take more than just the law into account, i.e., other factors that establish or disprove residency such as where his whole family lives and whether the utility records prove someone lived in his Kettering residence, both of which seem to point to his living somewhere other than there.

    That would be true, providing he didn’t enter state employment which is specifically addressed in the law, so there is not ambiguity. For example, in 1993 Bill Clinton, a married man, moved from Arkansas to Washington D.C. with his family, when it came time to vote, he returned to Arkansas to cast his ballot, as did George W. Bush when he returned to Texas. Both were married men, with children, all living outside their jurisdiction temporarily, but that is while serving. Ohio has the same clause to deal with this. The law specifically exempts people who move because of state and federal employment for a reason.

    #304244

    karenS
    Member

    Then why is the issue having to be decided by Brunner at all?

    #304245

    nexttuesday
    Participant

    The cited Ohio Revised Code only refers to state residency if a person leaves the state. Is there a similar section regarding districts within the state? If not, it looks like he might be out of luck.

    #304246
    hugh59
    hugh59
    Participant

    Lawmakers always have a problem when they try to arrange living space close to the seat of government. I think that Brunner is creating a precedent that will make all legislators sorry. Challenging a legislator’s residence could become another tool for opponents to use against them. The law is ambiguous which allows for lots of mischief.

    Let’s see what the Ohio Supreme Court does with this. If they support Husted it will be very embarrassing for Brunner.

    #304247

    berdawn
    Member

    hugh59 wrote >>
    Lawmakers always have a problem when they try to arrange living space close to the seat of government. I think that Brunner is creating a precedent that will make all legislators sorry. Challenging a legislator’s residence could become another tool for opponents to use against them. The law is ambiguous which allows for lots of mischief.
    Let’s see what the Ohio Supreme Court does with this. If they support Husted it will be very embarrassing for Brunner.

    that might be true if the SOS office were the one to have brought the lawsuit but that is not the case if I understand how this ended up in her office.

    #304248

    karenS
    Member

    I think what’s curious stems from this:

    Brunner broke a tie vote of the Montgomery County Board of Elections to settle a dispute about Husted’s residency

    i.e., who brought this up before the Montgomery County Board of Elections to begin with?

    #304249

    coolbuckeye
    Participant

    There were two challenges: on October 27th, 2008 a representative of ProgressOhio and then on October 28, the Board received another investigation request from Regine Elliot (R), a Montgomery County elector.

    #304250

    coolbuckeye
    Participant

    In her decision, Brunner cited two cases where a persons voting residency had been invalidated in large part due to the spouse having a different residency. My question is if they are married and they have two homes, why didnt the wife just register to vote in Montgomery cty? Isnt that their permanent adress?

    #304252
    hugh59
    hugh59
    Participant

    The case ended up in her office because a partisan political group in Montgomery County filed a complaint against Husted in an effort to eliminate him. The Board of Elections consists of two Democrats and two Republicans; it is designed that way so that actions require bipartisan support. Of course, if a county becomes politically polarized, the result will be deadlock. In that case, the Secretary of State casts a tie-breaking vote.

    Brunner is not above playing games with this system. If I recall correctly, there was a problem up in Cuyahoga County where she did not like the Republicans on the Board of Election. She wanted the elected Republicans removed and two Republicans of her choosing substited in. The Republicans in that county did not like the idea of a Democrat picking their representation.

    CORRECTION

    It may have been another county. I did a quick search and found this blog discussing the matter:

    High Court Orders SOS

    UPDATE

    Yet another blog discussing Brunner.

    Equal Vote Blog

    #304253

    Rocknrolloutlaws
    Participant

    Your memory of what actually occurred in Summit county is a bit skewed by the passage of time. Even the link provided highlighted that what occurred in that situation resulted from infighting within the Republican party and was not a reflection of partisanship on Brunner’s part.

    Not only that, the Ohio Supreme Court decision against Brunner in the Summit county case was a 4-3 split. On top of that, the only thing that the majority really agreed upon was that Brunner should lose; there was no consistent reason why.

    If you’re really interested, I suggest reading the decision and the briefs, which can all be found here:Summit Cty Rep. Party v. Brunner

    Once you read through all the legal issues involved, I would hardly say it’s an example of Brunner playing games with the system. And without a more detailed discussion of the actual issues at play in the Husted case, certainly more detailed than the Dispatch has provided, I think it’s exceedingly premature to make a similar claim in that case.

    #304254

    Mercurius
    Participant

    Rock’n’Roll, I’m a rather liberal bloke, but mostly I define liberal as fair or just. That is what I see as the problem here. Beyond the actual law, which seems to conflict, I see this as not fair to Husted. I see it as partisan and not in the best interest in either his district or the people of Ohio. Why does it really natter where the man lives if he continues to be elected? Obviously, a majority of his constituents feel he is representing them. Beyond that, he lives in both places so he can support his family and community, which I see as virtuous. More than one place can be your home. Let the voters decide on things that actually matter instead of obfuscating the issues.

    #304255
    hugh59
    hugh59
    Participant

    I agree with Mercurious. There is some point where a public officer should act on principles of fairness rather than on partisanship.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 46 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: