Call me one of the teeth gnashers and garment renderers, Kari. Sure, we can all fall back on the technical letter of the law, but if the shoe were on the other foot, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be happy about this slip up. Bottom line: if the Washington County clerk can't be trusted to get this kind of stuff straight, what are taxpayers paying him a salary for?

It's the Democratic motto that we're not for always making government smaller, we're for always making it better. And I know not better when I see it.

I'm pretty sure the Washington County clerk is not getting paid for being perfect.

When a mistake is made and discovered it's easy to look back and say that mistakes are bad and to see how that particular mistake might have been prevented--maybe even easily prevented. Preventing every possible mistake before it happens is considerably more difficult--and expensive.

I'm pretty sure none of us wants to pay the salaries we'd have to pay to double-check every possibly mistaken datum or action in the county clerk's office.

Better government is not perfect government and that's true outside of government too. If we wanted to pay to approach perfection, we'd probably want to start with doctors, whose mistakes are considerably more likely to kill people, and not with county clerks.

P.S. to Steven:

I believe a person who rends a garment would be a garment render, not a garment renderer.

You're right about that last. Sometimes I've got more Yogi Berra in me than I think.

Yeah, but what's the alternative? Let him serve in violation of the Oregon Constitution?

This isn't some silly little administrative rule, which could easily be waived. This is a constitutional requirement.

(p.s. I seem to recall a bunch of conservatives all hot and bothered about the "rule of law" a few years back.)

And besides, that's sort of the whole point of my post... it'd be one thing if EVERYONE had the data wrong. But they don't. The WashCo Clerk did. The census bureau sure doesn't.

And the story the other day on Oregon Live showed that this isn't the only case - there have been a few other cases recently of this happening. If the rule was overlooked for Duyck, then you'd have to do the same thing for the others. Which then opens up the floodgates.

If this happened to us, I'd be mad that the mistake wasn't caught earlier. But I wouldn't be fighting for the person to still be able to run - I'd be busily finding a new person to be on the ballot.

Here's that story that Jenni mentioned:

Such districting mistakes are rare "but not unheard of" in Oregon, Don Hamilton, a spokesman for the secretary of state, said. In May, Republican Ronald Schutz was declared ineligible for office in House District 3 after someone called questioning whether Schutz lived in the district. Josephine County discovered that Schutz lived in one of 25 residences that should have been placed in House District 4 but weren't because of a data entry error, said Art Harvey, Josephine County clerk. The state refunded Schutz's filing fees, but it was too late to remove his name from the primary ballot. The secretary of state will decide on another boundary dispute involving Al Pearn, the Republican nominee for House District 9, Hamilton said. Pearn has until July 11 to provide the state with an argument. But Lane County officials have already decided in favor of Pearn, saying the complaint was the result of poor map reading. "Basically, his residence is in the district and there is not a problem," said Roxann Marshall, elections supervisor for Lane County.

Interesting that all three are Republicans.

As I said on an earlier thread, I suspect that Duyck's campaign committee has a strong monetary claim against the county clerk. After all, they've spent money based on the clerk's bad advice.

But the Secretary of State (just by way of example) always makes it clear that their informal on-the-phone advice is just that: informal. You're still responsible for following the letter of the law. The same is surely true for the country clerks.

Frankly, the procedures at the county and state level ought to be revisited - so as to include a mandatory check of the Census Bureau's database. After all, double- and triple-checking the data against a single bad database isn't really double- or triple-checking at all. They should check all candidates against both the internal voter file and the external Census Bureau database. (It would take, what, an hour? Maybe 2-3 for all candidates in a county?)

That said, there's no remedy here that makes Duyck whole. I can sympathize. It totally sucks. But that's why they call it "due diligence."

No, he can't serve in violation of the Constitution. But this isn't some minor flub. There are only a handful of state representatives and state senators in a county, and an equal handful challenging them. It really shouldn't be that hard for the Clerk to get this stuff right. Especially when there's a guy who is repeatedly asking questions about it.

And it simply isn't reasonable to cast blame on Dyuck himself. Any one of us in a similar situation, having been repeatedly ill advised by the person whose responsibility it is to be the authority on this subject, would have been rightly incensed to find out the truth. So I see it as no more fair to attack him over any supposed "lack of due diligence" than it is to blame Secretary Bradbury.

Consider that the Census Block number given by the US Census site given above (i.e., 333) does not agree with the format of the values given in ORS 118.275 that Kari quoted(i.e., 033300) (This is Kari last comment in the item: "The Duyck Debacle" posted on this site on July 3; it's in the archive now). The "Block:Block" number (i.e., 1097) does agree with the format given in ORS 188.275. So, it is unclear how to map the US Census data to the ORS language.

It's consistent. 333 is the shorthand, because for formatting reasons the field is a string, in order to retain leading zeroes. At the end is an understood decimal point followed by the last two zeros, also understood if it is 00 (as opposed to 97, 98 or 99, as it usually is if there are no residences in that tract). So 333 is (0)333(.)(00).

Similarly, 1097 is Block Group 1, Block 097.

If you go to the description in the ORS for the 26th District, you will very clearly see block 1097 of census tract 33300;, which is in fact exactly where he lives.

Note further that the US Census data does not take note that the rest of Jeff's property is apparently in District 29.

It needn't, since only the address--where the house is--is of concern for districting.

What I detect here is a strong whiff of the Republican approach; "when in doubt, always blame the victim; no compassion is required (or allowed)."

The victim is the perpetrator. NO ONE is required to officially confirm a candidate's eligibility EXCEPT for the candidate him or herself. If you are running for office, all that matters is that your house is in one of the census blocks named in the Oregon Statutes. Period. The Census has the official word on what block you are in; from there you can look it up. Not even the Census' consideration of which LD you are in has any import; they could be wrong for any number of reasons too. But they are always right about your census block, and either your block is on the list or it is not.

Duyck's is not on the list for 29.

END. OF. STORY.

Geez.

"On the plus side, he won't be prosecuted for voting in the wrong district these past few years."

As a voter, in that situation it's actually the county's job to tell you where to vote. So if they screw that up, it is indeed on them. But as a candidate, it's YOUR job to know where to run. That's the difference.

Certinaly all agree that it is a raw deal for this candidate. I just wonder if the same smug posts would have been made by some had it been the OTHER candidate running in district 29 caught up in this situation.

I dont' know about "smug"...but I'd be willing to bet that you'd see "rule of law!" posts over at NWRepublican and RINOwatch--instead of the pap they've got up about the situation now.

Kari, if I had written this post, I would have highlighted the idea of "principles" as guiding this decision. The issue is complicated because we have competing principles. Is the principle fairness? Is it that the local county officials are responsible for certification? Or is it that the state constitution is the final arbiter. You've determined a principle (state constitution) and so the subsidiary questions are easier to resolve.

The decision needs to be made according to a guiding principle in this manner. It doesn't resolve the issue for people who are judging it by different principles, but it's clear, consistent, and reasonable.

(I am personally less persuaded by the constitutional principle, but I find faults with any single principle. At the end of the day someone's just gonna have to make a call and recognize that this is indeed a debacle. We can all learn from it going forward.)

As was pointed out in comments on the first post, Bruce Hanna recruited Duyck rather than again back Terry Rilling - who does live in the district.

Whatever grievances Duyck may have, Republicans in the district ought to be angry with Hanna since he bears a great deal of the responsibility for there being no GOPer on the ballot.

bob, they already SHOULD have been checking, and I'd wager that they have been, and are. The issue you raise is irrelevant; the candidate is wrong to use his voting record as a confirmation of his candidate eligibility. If you run for office and don't know what is required of you, don't run.

Is it too late for the fella to move into an Oregon-made teepee placed, oh, I don't know ... say ... 150 feet from his house?

"Just curious, TJ, but what exactly is the "certification" process by the Secretary of State for if not to confirm eligibility?"

Certification of materials submitted, not necessarily verification. The SoS certifies vote counts from the counties during an election--but they don't verify that the totals are correct. Certification is more of an acceptance of materials submitted in support of eligibility, than a verification of those materials.

The SoS certifies you as a registered voter without verifying that you're of age or a citizen (at least they used to!)

jerry, I never said anything like the candidate being the sole arbiter, that's silly. I said only the candidate is responsible for ensuring he is eligible. in other words, it's the candidate's job. Not the SoS or county clerk. Jeff may have done what's reasonable to verify, but he didn't do what is required, which is to discover his home's census block and check the ORS to see which district it's in.

The real irony is that the information at issue is locked up in a state-operated Geographic Information System somewhere... but one can only assume that there are no procedures for accessing that information when a candidate files.

Did you even read my post? Go back up to the top and follow the links.

Insider, your brilliance is overwhelming! Chuck runs unopposed and wins by a larger margin. Brilliant, simply brilliant...

Presumably, Duyck will resign his nomination - which means the GOP gets to pick another candidate.

Please try to comprehend this, please..... The reapportionment done after the 2000 census included the Jeff Duyck's Home, the residents, and thus balanced out the house districts to @ 57,023 each.

Rino: It looks like the comprehension shortage is in your court, not mine. The line is drawn through Duyck's property, like it or not. The house where Duyck actually dwells is on the HD 26 side of the line. You can come up with excuses six ways to Sunday on it--and that basic fact doesn't change.

The fact that Jeff Duyck was one of the top GOP House recruits--and that they either didn't know the situation or didn't bother to vet their candidate speaks volumes about what's going on with them. And frankly, if the situation were reversed, you'd be screeching over at your blog about how we all have to "follow the rule of law" and honor the boundaries.

That's why Jeff Duyck's residence was included and received ballots for D29, not D26. The boundary line drawn at the creek was arbitrary. The line drawn was in error, Capece?

Whether or not the line is arbitrarily drawn or drawn in error is meaningless for the purposes of this discussion. The line is there. It's been there for eight years. If Duyck or the Oregon Republican Party had a problem with it--there should have been action taken years ago. They didn't do it. Capice?

I'm betting that the Oregon GOP never bothered to even check where the boundary is for the district. Which means they weren't doing the very basic work of vetting their candidate. Which might go a long way toward explaining why they've hitched their star to the likes of Tony Marino, too.

The only "pap" you believe you are reading on RinoWatch is the "Pap Smear" you are perpetrating.

Funny. Are you here all week? Should I try the veal, too? LOL

Are you the person one who said that Chuck Riley was "beloved" in D29? Oh Really?

Did you forget that I live in Washington County and know a whole lot of people from Cornelius, Forest Grove, North Plains, etc? Yes--Riley is very much beloved in the district.

I tend to agree that a voter or candidate should be able to rely on the accuracy of the data in the voter file maintained by the SOS and counties.

It would certainly not be without precedent to allow a candidate who does not live in a given legislative district to represent that district -- this is allowed in congressional races in Oregon, for example.

However, the letter of the law is what it is, and there appears to be no real recourse for Duyck. The choice for Republicans is clear: Either they can nominate a candidate to replace Duyck, or they can get behind their 2006 candidate, Terry Rilling, who is running as an Independent.

There is little doubt in my mind that Rilling would accept a cross-nomination from the Washington County GOP.

"That's why Jeff Duyck's residence was included and received ballots for D29, not D26. The boundary line drawn at the creek was arbitrary. The line drawn was in error, Capece?"

This makes no sense at all. The boundary line "drawn" would be the boundary line created by the US Census to divide the state into blocks, no? All the Leg did after reapportionment was use the blocks and arrange them into districts, but the boundaries would already have been drawn at that point.

Further, as was pointed out in previous thread on this topic, in fact the districts are not all exactly even in number of voters, but have to be within some tolerance (the number cited was several hundred) of the desired number. And of course voting populations and their proportions of the whole change in between reapportionments. The argument about demographic size of districts is entirely irrelevant, and if Washington County had not made its error, and sent the Duycks their ballots in the correct district, it would not have caused the least problem to the overall system.

It's called hypocrisy. I recall when Steve Novick was being called on to run in the 5th CD even though he lives in the 1st or 3rd.

To run for Congress, one needs to merely live in the state -- not the district.

And if you're suggesting that I "called on" Steve to run for Congress, you're wrong. I suggest you re-read the post. I merely mentioned that he was being talked about as a potential candidate (which he was; though he promptly smacked down that speculation.)

Kari says, "I suspect that Duyck's campaign committee has a strong monetary claim against the county clerk." Neither Duyck nor his campaign committee has any such monetary claim, because the county clerk would be merely enforcing the law by excluding him from the ballot. If he were allowed on the ballot, however, then his opponents may well have a monetary claim against the county clerk for deliberately violating the law. As the legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence states:

A candidate for office may maintain a state court action for damages against an election official (whose duties are ministerial and nondiscretionary) for a breach of duty in an election if a candidate's right to a free and fair vote has been directly violated,[FN1] regardless of whether the election official acted maliciously, purposely or mistakenly. For instance, a candidate in a primary election might sue an individual election board member who arbitrarily and wrongfully declares invalid nominating petitions as being valid,[FN2] disregards a statutory duty by omitting a candidate's name from the ballot which, in turn, deprives that candidate of elective office,[FN3] or fails to accept a valid nominating petition which, in turn, kept the candidate's name off of the ballot.[FN4] Of course, such causes of action might be blocked by governmental immunity statutes. In one dispute, a secretary of state had a statutory duty to place a certain designation after a candidate's name on an election ballot when so requested; when the designation was not made, the secretary of state became liable in damages for any injury proximately caused.[FN5]

Duyck clearly has no right to be on the ballot. His opponents, however, do have the right to keep him off the ballot.

Kari also says, "To run for Congress, one needs to merely live in the state -- not the district." Not true. You can run for Congress and not live in the state. There is no residency requirement in order to be a candidate for Congress. To serve in Congress, however, you must, "when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen." So you must become an "inhabitant" of the state by election day.

Examples: Hillary Clinton was not a resident of New York during at least the first 6 months of her campaign for U.S. Senator from New York. Alan Keyes was a resident of Maryland during his entire campaign for U.S. Senator from Illinois (against Obama).

Isaac Laquedem has posted some interesting comments over at Jeff Alworth's earlier post on this subject, that raise questions about whether "too bad, but the law's the law, nothing to be done" view.

It would be interesting to have responses from other lawyers about the strength of his arguments. I'm not in a position to evaluate.

<h2>Not sure if those comments could be imported over here or if anyone still reading should just go back there.</h2>