Wait...what the?

How...

Why hasn't...

Aww fuck it. What's the point in even getting riled up? He's spitting directly in the face of the law without consequence. Ridiculous.

Meanwhile, Kate Brown continues to whistle while she works....

Nothing to see here!

"Aww fuck it. What's the point in even getting riled up? He's spitting directly in the face of the law without consequence. Ridiculous."

So true. And true for most state and federal officials as well. Not to mention the bankers who own them. Our justice system is in shambles. Unless of course you knock off the local 7-11 for $1,300. Then you're doing hard time with Bubba as a cell mate.

Steal millions/billions via fraud or complacency/looking the other way, and you're too big to fail. You're above the law.

Some animals are more equal than others...

He should claim that cash. For that kind of money, he could park downtown for up to two days. Oh, wait...

We're up to $1.60 an hour. At a meter on the street. When there's no Merritt Paulson soccer game.

Great find.

But...

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/133.225

Did you actually watch him vote or sign his envelope or register to vote, etc.?

"A private person may arrest another person for any crime committed in the presence of the private person if the private person has probable cause to believe the arrested person committed the crime."

I guess you didn't have to see it. You could have been near him when he did it.

Here's the plan: We'll stake out his house for the May election and after he's done stuffing fluoride down our throats we intercept him in the act of mailing or returning his ballot.

I do believe his registration still isn't valid.

Don't forget the crime-fighting costumes.

Here's another question:

1. Did Charlie keep his Oregon driver's license along with his Oregon voter registration?

2. If so, did he use it to avoid paying sales tax while living in Washington?

Also did he ever register to vote in Washington?

Thanks
JK

Must be a reason why the local main stream media doesn't pursue this as an interesting story.

Local media: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Seth Woolley is starting to sound like the MultCo GOP chair.

Have to be careful not to ruffle feathers of the Portland Polite?

I read all of Wooley's request to the Sec of State, his evidence, and his lawsuit. 1)I hope he has an invitation to post his updates here.

Hs original complaint stated lots and lots of references to laws. Sec of State's response was: Not our jurisdiction; county registrar decides. That was the only area Wooley made no references.

2) Is there case or ORS law that says the Sec of State ultimately must rule on voter registration matters?

Thanks

I don't know about case law, this lists the duties of our Secretary of State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Secretary_of_State

The Secretary of State of Oregon, an elected constitutional officer within the executive branch of government of the U.S. state of Oregon, is first in line of succession to the Governor.[1] The duties of office are: auditor of public accounts, chief elections officer, and administrator of public records. Additionally, the Secretary of State serves on the Oregon State Land Board and chairs the Oregon Sustainability Board. Following every United States Census, if the Oregon Legislative Assembly cannot come to agreement over changes to legislative districting, the duty falls to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has performed this duty every decade since 1921.[2]A

Elections Division performs administrative and oversight duties with respect to elections in concert with the County governments, maintains a central voter registry, and publishes the Voters' Pamphlet. These duties include working with the referendum, initiative, and recall process and accepting the registration of candidates for elective office.

In reply to ConcordBridge.

The Sept 27 complaint re-filed after the original complaint http://swoolley.org/files/hales_complaint_sept27.pdf specifically addressed the jurisdiction on page 5 of 21 (marked page -2-) and the following page. Here's the last paragraph note regarding ORS 247.174:

"Note that the county official merely determines the qualifications of the person "in the first instance." This does not excuse the Secretary of State from her responsibility to enforce Oregon’s election laws, including those pertaining to voter registration."

In the opening sentence and paragraph of the jurisdiction section I refer to ORS 246.110, which designates the SoS as the chief elections officer. Further I note that her jurisdiction applies to all election laws by reference to 260.345(3).

So yes, check out ORS 246.110 (actually, read 120 which specifically mentions the registration of electors as part of her domain) and 260.345(3), as well as 247.174. You will see that jurisdiction is firmly established.

The Wikipedia article excerpt above is essentially correct as well, as the ORS citations I provide above corroborate.

If the county administrators do not follow her administrative mandates, she is free to sue them and compel them to act using a process similar to the one I'm using to compel her to act for the reason that she's the chief elections officer. As an elector I'm entitled to go after the chief elections officer after making a complaint to the chief elections officer over any election law violations. Using the complaint filing system and appeal system of 260.345 route, I can't simply compel the clerk to follow the rules. The judge however can order the Secretary to give proper orders and do proper processes, and the judge can make their own determination as well, as I cite other mechanisms in the suit than 260.345; as I ask for relief using as many legal routes as I could find.

I'm using the established statutory processes to do this. It seems kind of convoluted, but that's why I filed with three agencies in the first complaint with cover letters essentially describing how it works.

Regarding the case law question, you'll find a previous case where Bradbury kicked Ralph Nader off the ballot that cites ORS 246.110 and 120 (which references and fully quotes the registration of electors portion noted above!) giving the Secretary very wide latitude to promulgate previously unwritten rules to enforce existing law. You can read it here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12113328121409747713 Under that legal theory Brown (or Trout) can just write an email to the Scott, Multnomah Director of Elections and now he has to comply.

Perhaps I'll be able to use that anti-Green power flexing against them. ;)