Deschire Supreme Court: It's Too Late For Schiffer To Run

Special Election For Governor Turning Into A Mess Of Scandal And Litigation

NORTH BERIVIAN, DES--The Deschire Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that it is too late for current interim Governor Jim Schiffer (NAT) to get his name on the ballot for the November special gubernatorial election.

Schiffer took over as interim governor following the impeachment of former governor Jane Sonda (NAT). While Sonda was governor, Schiffer was the Majority Leader in the Deschire State House of Delegates, constitutionally making him next in line to the governorship, but only temporarily until a special election could be held.

Secretary of State Mary Jo Richardson chose November 4th as the scheduled date for the special election. The last day to file to run was October 14th.

That's where the problem with Governor Schiffer started. Back in June, upon taking over as governor, Schiffer said he would not run in the special election. Instead, he said at a news conference he would "only serve as governor until someone else can serve permanently."

With Schiffer out of the running, Lieutenant Governor Jake Kemp (NAT) announced he would run. Conservative Sharon Kelley also threw her hat into the ring. And in August, DR candidate Grant Riley said he too will run, making it a three-way race.

Governor Schiffer remained silent on any plans for candidacy, even though in September, a group of his supporters started two groups to draft him to run. "Deschireans for Schiffer" and "Friends of Jim Schiffer" both urged the governor to run, and began raising money to promote his unofficial or non-existent candidacy. As of October 27th, Deschireans For Schiffer had raised $60,000 and Friends of Jim Schiffer had raised over $350,000. The two groups had even purchased advertisement slots on billboards, TV commercials, and signs in an effort to draft the governor.

Immediately, the Kemp and Riley campaigns filed a joint-lawsuit, alleging that Schiffer was having his supporters campaign for him to give him name recognition without officially filing for office and going through the normal candidacy procedures. Initially, Governor Schiffer denied rumors he might decide to run at the last minute. But, on Friday October 26th, he announced he would seek to run in the special election after all.

According to court records, Schiffer attemped to file to run, and at first, Secretary of State Richardson accepted his registration and told him that he could still run despite being passed the registration deadline. Following news of Richardson's approval, conservative lawmakers filed a lawsuit and publicly attacked Richardson for election fraud.

"It appears Secretary of State Richardson thinks she can just skirt past the laws and only apply them when she feels like it," State Rep. Richard DeLongo (C-West Berivian) said.

After learning of a lawsuit against her, Richardson withdrew her approval of Schiffer's registration, and denied his request to be on the ballot. Schiffer then filed a lawsuit against Richardson for misleading him and causing irrevocable damage to his campaign.

"If I was ineligible to run, why did Secretary Richardson tell me I was eligible?" Schiffer asked at a news conference Monday. "She misled me; she lied to me, actually, to my face. She told me I could run. She told me it was legally acceptable for me to run. And then, a few days later, she comes back and tells us she made a mistake, we were not eligible to run."

Conservatives are skeptical.

"I think, personally, that Jim Schiffer and Mary Jo Richardson were in on this together. At first, Jim Schiffer wasn't interested in running. But at the last minute, he changed his mind. By then, it was too late, but he still wanted to run, and Richardson, being the good friend and fellow NAT that she is, tried to quietly get him on the ballot; hoping no one would notice. But we did notice, and when we caught her red-handed, she lied and said she made a mistake, and then she back-tracked and pretended to be tough and deny Schiffer's candidacy," said State Representative Mary Robbins (C-Sanderson).

Richardson denied any purposeful wrong doing, while conservatives attacked both her and Schiffer.

After the fallout, the lawsuits were taken before the Supreme Court. Schiffer's campaign argued that their candidate should still be allowed on the ballot because he was misled by the Secretary of State's office. The Kemp and Riley campaigns argued against that, saying that Schiffer was simply to late to file.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court denied Schiffer's request; agreeing with the other campaigns that Schiffer was past the deadline and no exceptions should be made.

"Mr. Schiffer and his campaign might indeed have been misled by Secretary of State Richardon's office, but that does not change the fact that he was still too late to file," wrote Justice Judy Parwinkle on behalf of the majority. "Allowing him to enter the race now would not be fair the other candidates in the race, the political parties, nor the voters of Deschire."

But in dissent, Justice Maria De Parnova said, "Mr. Schiffer, regardless of any politics, should be allowed to enter the race because it is clear that, if he wasn't misled by the Secretary of State's office, he was certainly misinformed. He and his campaign should not be penalized simply because the Secretary of State made a mistake."

The ruling means Governor Schiffer will not be able to have his name placed on the ballot. He also cannot officially declare his candidacy or fundraise. However, his supporters can run a write-in campaign, in which his name would not appear on the ballot but voters could write him in instead.

In a separate ruling, the court dismissed the lawsuit from the Kemp and Riley campaigns that alleged Mr. Schiffer was allowing his supporters to run a campaign on his behalf without officially declaring candidacy. The court also dismissed a lawsuit from conservative lawmakers against Secretary of State Richardson, saying there was not sufficient evidence. However, the court did refer the case to the Deschire Provincial Police (DPP) and the House and Assembly ethics committees for further review.

In response to the court's ruling, Governor Schiffer said he was "disappointed" and "displeased" but respected their ruling. Jake Kemp's campaign said it was "happy the court upheld election law." The Riley campaign did not return comment.

Schiffer did not say if he would abandon his bid for the governorship, or if he would continue with a write-in campaign.

BREAKING NEWS--Jurors Sentence Helgin

BREAKING NEWS

GNN is following breaking news out of Lincoln County in Damoign, where jurors in the former delegate Dave Helgin case have agreed on a sentence for the convicted sex-offender.

Former Remmington Delegate Dave Helgin (NAT), who was convicted of various crimes last week by the same jury, was today sentenced to three and a half years in prison.

Helgin was charged with numerous counts of having sex with a minor, indecent liberties, transporting a minor across state lines with the intent to commit a crime, misuse of office, and obstruction of justice. He was convicted on several of those counts. He could have faced a maximum sentence of eight years in prison.

In its decision, the jury, made up of 6 women and 6 men, said that Helgin should not face the maximum sentence for several reasons, but most importantly because Melody McMahon, the woman he had sex with, who at the time was a minor but is now 19, consented. Helgin, now age 48, was 46 years old at the time of the affair. Against her family's wishes, McMahon asked the jury to use restraint in their verdict and sentencing.

"Please remember that I was a willing participant, and it was a mutual relationship. Please take that into consideration when you make the decision. It's not entirely his fault," she said during court testimony.

The jury responded by saying in a statement,"We cannot give Mr. Helgin the maximum sentence in this case because the other participant in these activities consented to sexual intercourse. However, we have concluded that Mr. Helgin did use his position of power, authority, and influence, both as a high-ranking public official and as an employment supervisor, to threaten Ms. McMahon and pressure her into engaging in activities she wanted no part in. And we conclude furthermore that Mr. Helgin misused his office, clearly violated interstate laws, and was not truthful with investigators during the initial stages of the case."

"As a result, we feel a sentence of three years and six months is sufficient in this case. Mr. Helgin will be held in a medium-security prison facility, at the Judge's discretion."

Immediately after the sentence was read, Mr. Helgin was visibly upset. His legal team spoke with GNN after the court proceedings.

"We're disappointed, but we realize this could have been much worse," Dave Darangelo, Helgin's attorney said.

The prosecution team, which included federal attorneys from both Remmington and Damoign, the two states where the crimes occurred, said the jury was "brave to stand up to a high-powered politician."

"The jury showed Mr. Helgin and any others like him that might consider committing such crimes in the future that political status has no bearing on the outcome of a case. No one is above the law. You're political connections can't save you from the consequences of your own actions," Robert Delerno, one of the attorneys told GCAM-TV News afterwards.

The McMahon family had little to say about the sentence.

"We're very grateful this entire ordeal is over," said William McCabry, an attorney for the family.

Reaction on Capitol Hill was split. Most of Helgin's colleagues had no comment.

Majority Leader Dlg. Joan Fhonda (C-DES) told the GBC, "it's a sad day when a member of Congress is convicted and sentenced in a criminal courtroom."

A spokesman for Minority Leader Dlg. Shay Robertson (N-DMG) said, "Our thoughts and prayers are with Delegate Helgin and his family through this troubling time. We are also praying for healing for both the McMahon family and the people of Remmington."

Yesterday, the House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly to censure the former Remmington nationalist. Members from both parties joined in a 49-6 vote in favor of censuring him out of the Body. The six delegates who voted against the measure included nationalists Brian Brookes and Barry Moore, both of Ceona; Grace Kemp of Trinton, Kory Brown and Debbie Madronas of Damoign; and conservative Robert Hannity of Monomi.

Helgin's attorneys declined to say if they will appeal the sentencing.

The McMahon family has also launched a civil suit against the former delegate for an undisclosed amount of money.

Neither side had any comments on that case.

Thompson Defends Record In Tense GBC Interview

Delegate Susan Thompson (N-LIA) defended herself Wednesday in a tense interview with the GBC's Glenn Awell.

Appearing on the GBC's National Forum, the Lial nationalist fought off attacks from her critics and future opponents. She also shared her long-term plan for the state of Lial.

The interview covered a wide range of issues that will likely be important in the delegate's upcoming bid for reelection in 2008. Everything from the Iraq war to healthcare and education to the environment and social issues was addressed.

To start off, Awell asked Thompson to respond to attacks on her from two conservatives vying for her position in '08: Libby Marshall, a company executive from eastern Lial, and two-term Rep. Jeff Woonby, who represents southeastern Lial in the National Assembly. Last week, Marshall said at a speaking engagement that Thompson has been "soft on national security and weak on domestic issues." And yesterday, 36-year-old Woonby said Thompson "is a do-nothing delegate."

"That's certainly not true, Glenn. I honestly don't know why Mr. Marshall would call me 'soft on national security' or 'weak on domestic issues,'" Thompson said. "In fact, it's quite the opposite. I voted for the Security Budget increase, which boosted national security funding by $220 million. I also voted for the Cargo and Import Shipment Requirement, which would have forced port officials and border patrol members to search more import cargo that is coming into our country."

"And on domestic issues, I really don't know what Mr. Marshall is talking about. I have voted to protect the environment, and I've voted to hold this administration responsible," she continued.

The more heated moments in the interview came when Mr. Awell asked Thompson to explain comments she made in a September 2007 Grassadella City Times article, in which she insinuated the president and conservative members of Congress 'love war.'

"No Glenn. You're twisting my words...you're changing my words. I didn't say that they love war. I just said that they are sometimes eager to get involved in other nations' business. I think you're really taking my words out of context here."

"I don't believe I am. They're your words. You said them," Awell said.

"I really think you are! I think you're taking what I said and you're making it appear like something it isn't."

At the time of the incident, conservative leaders criticized Thompson for her comments, and demanded an apology.

"No one loves war. No one revels in it. And for Delegate Thompson to suggest such a thing is incredibly offensive and despicable. She should recant what she said and apologize to the president and to her conservative colleagues in the House and Assembly," Bob Viacrosa, National Conservative Party Chairman said.

Following her comments, Thompson did clarify her comments; her spokeswoman saying she was "pointing out the differences in foreign policy between the two parties," but she did not issue an apology.

Responding to Mr. Awell's question, Thompson said she believes the incident was "blown out of proportion" and is being used "strictly for partisan purposes."

"I don't think partisanship is going to win this election," she said.

And so far, it appears taking out Thompson will be quite a task for the Conservative party. She is one of the most popular members of Congress, and one of the most respected delegates in the House.

A poll released Thursday showed Thompson with with a 67% approval rating. Additionally, the poll showed if the election were held today, Thompson would enjoy a 64%-36% victory over Libby Marshall, and when matched against Woonby, she leads with 61%-39%.

Thompson's campaign hailed the poll numbers as solid proof she will win reelection.

"She is more than safe. This proves that the Conservative party's attack methods do not resound with voters," said Thompson spokesman Paul Richards.

But Marshall and Woonby, who will face each other in a primary election before the general election with Thompson, are doubtful the delegate will be so secure come next election.

"November 2008 is a long way from here, and as voters become more adjusted to Libby Marshall's message of peace, prosperity, and hope for our state, they will be more of supportive of him and less supportive of Ms. Thompson," David Geare, spokesman for Marshall said.

Woonby's campaign had similar remarks.

"It's way too early for Delegate Thompson to count on assured victory," Phil Spooke said in an e-mail to GNN NEWS.

McIntosh Takes Heat From Conservative Groups

Vulnerable incumbent draws criticism from right and left


Considered to be one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the 2008 election cycle, Dlg. Steven McIntosh (C-LIA) is coming under attack from all sides.

Not only is McIntosh facing attacks from liberal opponents, the Lial Conservative is also drawing criticism from conservative groups, for comments he made in an interview with the GBC's Kevin Walters last week.

Asked what his campaign strategy was, McIntosh responded, "My strategy is focusing on economic issues and environmental issues, and the war, because those have been my issues. Every citizen in Lial, like people everywhere across this country, I'm sure, are concerned about the war in Iraq. They're worried about global warming. And they're worried that Nationalists, and quite frankly, some Conservatives, are going to over-spend government money and give this country a huge deficit."

Walters then asked McIntosh if he would devote as much attention to hot-button social issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

"I don't think Lialans really care about social issues. I think they're more concerned right now with getting our country out of Iraq. They're more worried about climate change. You know, when it comes to things like abortion and same-sex marriage, Lialans are really willing to just kind of keep those feelings to themselves, and focus more on the more pressing issues at hand."

That answer drew scorn from many conservative and Christian groups.

"It sounds like Dlg. McIntosh is out of touch with the voters of Lial," said Dr. Richard Thompkins, President of the National Family Council, a Monvaille-based Christian group. "He thinks global warming is a greater threat to our people than same-sex marriage? He thinks a balanced budget is more important than the thousands of abortions that occur every year in this state? Obviously, he doesn't know what he's talking about."

Michael Enslinger, a conservative talk-radio host based out of Sonoma City, said on his nationally-syndicated show that McIntosh is simply ignoring conservative Christians and pandering to left-leaning independent voters and Nationalists.

"McIntosh is just basically ignoring all of us values-voters. He's essentially saying that he is not going to stand up for the sanctity of human life or the sacredness of marriage. Listen up people, he's basically telling us he does not care about these issues."

But McIntosh spokesman Jared Strong said that's simply not true.

"Dlg. McIntosh absolutely does care about social issues. He does care about abortion. He does care about same-sex marriage. It's just that he feels we can only focus attention on these important social issues after we've addressed basic, fundamental issues such as getting our troops out of Iraq, and being good stewards of our environment."

Thompkins also threatened that conservative Christian voters, who in 2002 put their support behind McIntosh, might withdraw their support and instead vote for a more conservative candidate or even a Traditionalist candidate.

"If Dlg. McIntosh refuses to address these issues, which are the most important issues facing our country right now, then we cannot support him for the House of Delegates. We can't send someone like that to represent our state and to lead our country," Thompkins said.

In the past, Nationalists have criticized McIntosh for being too supportive of the Byelle Administration on fiscal issues. Fellow conservatives have criticized him for his moderate stance on social issues. It appears, says Richard Messler, a political scientist from Lial University in Clothen, that McIntosh can't please anyone.

"He's trying to be conservative on some issues and more liberal on others. He's trying to be a moderate, but he can't satisfy everyone on the political spectrum," Messler said.

The problem, Messler adds, is that McIntosh is a Conservative in traditionally liberal Lial.

"Mainstream Conservatives have a hard time getting elected in Lial because it is so liberal. So most conservatives in public office in Lial are moderates to some degree."

In many ways, McIntosh is liberal-leaning. He is a staunch environmentalist, which has angered many industry-favoring Conservatives. He has also led the fight against global warming and climate change--also putting him at odds with his party. He supports gun control and opposes deporting illegal immigrants. He has challenged the president on the Iraq war several times, and has called for troops to come home.

He also supports some forms of stem cell research.

But McIntosh is also strongly pro-life. He opposes same-sex marriage (though he has said in the past he would support civil unions), and he supports teaching intelligent design side-by-side with evolution in public schools.

So is McIntosh a conservative, moderate, or liberal? He considers himself a conservative with alternative views.

"First and foremost, I am a Conservative--but I have alternative views that some people in our party don't share. Unfortunately, within both the NAT and CNS parties, there is this idea that you either support every position the party holds or you don't. If you disagree with any of the positions, you're a traitor, you're unfaithful, unloyal. It's just wrong. We wouldn't be anywhere if everyone held the same views. We need to branch out and expand the compass of our party."

Collester Backs Away From First Lady's Remarks

MAVOCKE--Just because his wife endorses Dlg. Jim Frasier for president doesn't mean President Byelle endorses the Deschire Conservative, Press Secretary David Arnett said Monday.

Collester is distancing itself from remarks First Lady Sharon Byelle made over the weekend in Wellington after a speech she gave to the conservative think tank Wellington Solutions. Following her speech, the First Lady took questions from the audience. One person asked which conservative candidate she felt would make a better president.

"I don't think there's any difficulty determining that," Byelle said. "One is a distinguished delegate who has served admirably for decades and has stayed true to the principles of the conservative party, and the other is a disgruntled employee who's using his dismissal from my husband's administration as a rallying cry and anthem for his campaign."

Immediately upon hearing her comments, a few John Shirley supporters stood up and heckled the First Lady, yelling, "He's a conservative too!" and "your husband fired him for no reason!" Several people booed.

To those shouts, the First Lady replied, "John Shirley is a traitor. I have no problem saying that. It's true. He's not a true conservative. He's fake. He's opposed conservative ideas and values for years. He's a liberal masquerading as a conservative...a wolf in sheep's clothing, you could say," she said to laughs from the audience.

The hecklers were removed from the auditorium, though afterward, several other members of the audience expressed discomfort with Byelle's comments.

"I think she has made this too much of a personal issue, and she shouldn't have said what she said," Karry Repol said.

John Shirley's campaign felt the same way.

"Sharon Byelle was totally and absolutely wrong to make the remarks she made about Dep. Sec. Shirley. Her words were wholly unwholesome, inappropriate and hurtful. John is not a disgruntled employee, and he is certainly not a traitor. If anyone's a traitor, it's Sharon Byelle for attacking a fellow conservative and questioning John's genuineness," campaign spokesman Jared Spokes said in an email to GNN NEWS.

Spokes continued, "The fact is John Shirley is not a disgruntled employee. Yes he was fired, but he wasn't fired because he was incompetent or incapable or unqualified. He was fired because he disagreed with the president's decision to send troops to Iraq, and when he voiced his opposition, he was eliminated. What makes this worse is that the president, first lady, and others in Congress have questioned John's patriotism and conservative loyalty because he didn't agree with them. With this administration, it's basically if you don't support the war, you're portrayed as an unpatriotic traitor.

"John is just as much a conservative as Sharon or her husband or anyone else. He happens to hold different ideas and views on some issues than other members of his party. But that does not make him a traitor. Sometimes, his progressive views come under attack from people like the First Lady, who want to keep the conservative party the same old, humdrum, exclusive party it is. These people aren't open to new ideas and essentially try to squelch any opposition to their same, old, ordinary, radical agenda."

What complicates this issue further is that on Saturday, September 29th, before his wife's controversial comments were made, President Byelle told students at the University of POG-Lake City that he wouldn't endorse either Dlg. Jim Frasier or former Dep. Sec. of Foreign Affairs John Shirley for the conservative nomination.

"Dlg. Frasier is a committed and dedicated member of Congress who has fought on behalf of the people of Deschire and Grassadella on many issues. And Deputy Secretary Shirley is a former member of my administration who has a wealth of knowledge and has served admirably in public service for years. They are both good men," Byelle said. "But I'm not going to endorse one over the other, because they're both well-qualified individuals, and the nominating process is not up to me, it's up to the conservative voters."

Collester did not address the First Lady's comments until Monday, when Press Secretary David Arnett told the media that the first lady does not speak for the president.

"Do they disagree? Absolutely. The president disagrees with his wife that he should endorse someone. And I think it's important to say that while the first lady may have some pointed feelings toward Deputy Secretary Shirley, the president does not. He holds no hard feelings. He considers John Shirley a friend, a colleague, and a distinguished public servant. He does not consider him a traitor or a fake conservative."

Shirley's campaign felt Arnett's comments were not enough.

"It's clear the president is trying to remain neutral and silent on this, but they can't muzzle the first lady. This is bad PR for Collester and the president, and I'm sure this did them no favors," John Adams, a spokesman for the Shirley campaign said Monday afternoon.

Also Monday, several conservative members of Congress called on the first lady to apologize.

"I think she ought to apologize face to face to John and tell him she deeply regrets what she said," Dlg. Steven McIntosh (LIA) said at a press conference.

McIntosh was joined by Dlgs. Brian Altamont (DMG), Dale Fulbright (ARA), Richard C. Parker (TRI), and Victoria Albright (CEA) in calling for Byelle's apology.

As of Monday afternoon, the first lady had not apologized. Her office did confirm that she will hold a press conference Tuesday morning, however. GNN NEWS will keep you up-to-date with this story.