Montana Supreme Court Unseats Jore
December 28th, 2004Today, the Montana Supreme Court issued an order, reversing a lower state court. The lower court had upheld the officials who had recounted the race for district 12, Montana House of Representatives. The recount officials, and the lower court, had agreed that the race was tied. Since the race had been tied, the Governor had exercised her right to fill the vacancy, and she had appointed Jore.
But the Montana Supreme Court said that “at least one” of Rick Jore’s votes is not valid. The Court said it would explain its reasoning later. Rick Jore would have been the first person elected to a state legislature as a Constitution Party nominee.
Since Jore had been appointed to the seat by the Governor, on the basis that the popular vote had been tied, the fact that the Montana eliminated “at least one” of Jore’s votes, means that Jore was not eligible to be appointed to the seat.
December 29th, 2004 at 3:27 pm
I’m disappointed. Perhaps next time the Republicans can agree not to run against him, thus preventing another split electorate. I look forward to Windham losing in 2006
December 29th, 2004 at 9:57 pm
“Perhaps next time the Republicans can agree not to run against him, thus preventing another split electorate.”
What the f**k are you talking about. Are you suggesting the mainstream parties shouldn’t campaign so the wackos can win? Brent, you are a loser. The constitution party is by definition pathetic losers. Take your medication before you make an ass of yourself.
December 30th, 2004 at 1:28 am
The conservatives who WASTED their votes on the Republican cost Jore the election, gave the victory to the liberal Democrat, and caused the Montana House to have a Democrat majority.
December 30th, 2004 at 4:29 am
This result was just about inevitable. Major parties don’t let minor parties participate if they can help it.
December 30th, 2004 at 12:48 pm
Bob,
You don’t have a clue, do you. Rick Jore ran in 2000, 2002 and 2004; and every time, the Republican comes in third, splitting the electorate. The Republican is the spoiler in this case.
It would have been beneficial for the GOP not to run a candidate. Had they not, the GOP would be in control of the House. Do your research before blowing comments out of your a$$.
Oh, on a final note, UP YOURS.
December 30th, 2004 at 12:59 pm
I think if they look they will find a vote for the dem. invalid also !! THIS NEEDS TO GO TO A HIGHER COURT!! The two party system has got to go .
December 31st, 2004 at 10:29 pm
Not only did the Constitution Party lose another seat for conservatives, but in the process the Constitution Party was slapped around in the press to the point that next time the wingnut will get even less votes. Ideals don’t matter without strategy and once again the Constitution Party has shown that they are the poor man’s Republican. Ouch.
January 1st, 2005 at 1:50 am
Jore’s beliefs are no different than when he served as a Republican, 1994 - 2000. Had Cross not been in the race, Jore would have won by a 6 to 4 margin.
Voters in HD12 are very conservative.
The Constitution Party represents their values.
January 2nd, 2005 at 1:42 pm
This is just another ruse by the two-party duopoly to keep the people’s voice from being heard. The republican-Democratic coalition has always been guilty of underhanded trickary when making sure that competition cannot win popular support. They lable Independent-reform, Libertarian,Green, and Constitutionalist candidates as spoilers, throw out petitions, harass other voices and choices, orchestrate assassinations of presidential candidates belonging to other alternative factions(Example:George Wallace was shot and wounded),ecourage people to vote for the two-party system by habit, minipulate the media so as to deter the other parties from receiving publicity, and retain the electortal college as a safegaurd against fair competition.
January 3rd, 2005 at 6:12 am
“at least one vote is not valid” and “reasoning will be explained later”
Typical.
January 12th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Try “Instant Runoff Voting” for the next election. I think all arguments will be settled and the elected candidate will have the support needed for the office. Why have these pointless arguments?