West End Weekly Reporter

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Collett Demands Disqualification of Senator Lodge

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014, Greg Collett recorded an Affidavit and Demand for Disqualification and served that demand at the Canyon County Elections office. Copies are being sent via certified mail to Ben Ysursa, Idaho Secretary of State, and Chris Yamamoto, Canyon County Clerk.

The affidavit states Collett's legal standing under Idaho Code 34-215 and outlines specific charges against Patti Anne Lodge, Chris Yamamoto, and Ben Ysursa. Collett is specifically demanding that the secretary of state revoke the certification of candidacy for Patti Anne Lodge, and that the county clerk cancel the current voter registration of Patti Anne Lodge.

Lodge has been living in District 10 since 2011, waiting for a new home to be built on her property in District 11 after her former home was donated and removed from the property.

The secretary of state certified her candidacy in District 11, stating that her situation is covered by law as a temporary situation. Collett maintains that Lodge's property does not meet the definition of "Residence" as provided for in law, therefore, she does not meet the constitutional requirement to be on the ballot.

Collett stated that his purpose at this time is to seek administrative action to resolve the concerns; however, he is prepared to take the issue to district court, if needed.

http://www.gregcollettforidaho.com/

More Information on the Senator Lodge Voter Fraud Case;

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014, Greg Collett formally challenged the entry of Patti Anne Lodge's name as it appeared in the election register, noting the reason as "does not live in the district". According to Idaho Code 34-431, any registered elector may challenge an entry in the election register at the time of any election. Collett had previously inquired at the election office about making a challenge during the early voting time period, but was informed that there was no practical way for that to occur. The software and method of record keeping simply did not provide for that scenario.

Patti Anne Lodge solved the dilemma unknowingly by going in to vote early, which caused her name to be printed in the election register. The elections office notified Collett, who was then able to go in and record the challenge. Collett was informed that the secretary of state
had been consulted, and that their office had made a note to address the early voting challenge situation during the next legislative session.

When an entry is challenged in the election register, the county clerk is required to mail an inquiry to the challenged elector, who then has the option to respond. If the response does not satisfy the clerk, a hearing is scheduled so the challenged elector can present evidence of qualification. If the challenged elector fails to make the statement, or if the clerk determines at the conclusion of the hearing that the registration is not valid, the clerk is required to cancel the registration.

Lodge has been living in District 10 since 2011, waiting for a new home to be built on her property in District 11 after her former home was donated and removed from the property.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

America’s Marriage Miasma

By Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman

Has America has bent over backwards too far in its spiritual, moral, and constitutional life so that we are in danger of “breaking”? This question is central to our current series of Court Watch Briefings. The question has been precipitated by America’s Culture War and echoes the anguished cry of the Father in the famous musical production, “Fiddler on the Roof,” who felt that revolutionary changes in his world were pushing him to the “breaking point.”

We are proving that America is indeed in the “danger zone” and is in dire need of a massive “straightening up process.” Nothing more clearly demonstrates this fact than the recent same-sex marriage decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court — Perry v. Hollingsworth and Windsor v. U.S. To understand more fully these egregious decisions, we are examining the various court opinions in these cases, employing the unique and powerful analyticaltools crafted for us by the preeminent Christian apologist, Francis Schaeffer. A major theme of Schaeffer’s paradigm was to find, and respond properly to, the tension between the real world and the illogical positions of unrealistic philosophies. Thus, we are currently comparing the Judeo-Christian worldview of law and culture (which is consistent with reality) to the Humanistic worldview (which is incongruent with reality). Six crucial components constitute a worldview’s theories of law, and we shall consider in this Briefing the third of these components. We state the Judeo-Christian position in bold type and include in italics the relevant characteristic of the Western legal tradition which Professor Harold Berman has declared that the West, including America, is losing.

EPISTEMOLOGY: The nature, meaning, and knowledge of legal norms and standards. Are these norms and standards absolute or relative? Must they be logical? How are they discovered, determined, articulated, interpreted, created, etc. Is there “true truth” which law must embody?

At the heart of God’s Higher Law are norms and standards thatmanifest absolute truth and meaning.They are expressed in both natural law and revealed law (the Scripture) but most perfectly in revealed law, and are inherently logical. Man is endowed by God with powers of reason and logic and is to exercise these powers (though they are flawed by the Fall) to apprehend that law which God reveals to him. Civil (human) law should thus reflect God’s Higher Law, and man is held accountable for conforming civil law to Higher Law.

The Humanist/Reconstructionist position on epistemology is fatally flawed at every turn, as revealed in the pro-homosexual court decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. U.S. We must remember that Perry/Windsor reflect far more than the specific issues and positions of the immediate parties to the cases. Rather, they afford us a panoramic view of the entire homosexual rights battle and should be viewed in that light. Four flaws are among the most pernicious found in the pro-homosexual rights epistemology. We exam the first two here.

Perry/Windsor are hypocritically ABSOLUTIST in epistemology, directly contradicting Humanism’s commitment to “relativism.”“Relativism” is one of the Humanist’s most frequently used weapons against the Judeo-Christian worldview — “all truth and meaning are relative” proclaim our foes. Yet absolutist positions permeate Humanist/Reconstructionist thought, as illustrated inPerry/Windsor. A few examples are revealing:
1. “All truth is relative” is a passionately proclaimed core of Humanist thought in general. But the statement itself is an absolute (non-relative) statement. Humanism is absolutist and therefore inherently oxymoronic. Yet Perry/Windsor contain many absolutist assertions, and the absurdity of these assertions is clearly illustrated by the few illustrations given below.
2. “State definitions of marriage to include same-sex couples are within ‘the unquestioned authority of the States’” is an absolutist assertion of state government power. But if there were no “question” about this authority, there would be no Perry or Windsor— whether the states do have the “authority” to ban same-sex marriages is precisely the core question of Perry and is foundational to the issues raised in Windsor. Furthermore, the states’ authority as it has been recognized throughout Anglo-American legal history hasnever, ever included the power to radically redefine marriage, rejecting the Judeo-Christian meaning assigned in Scripture and accepted as binding in law and non-legal realms. (More on this in a later Briefing.)
3. “Social science studies have disproven the hypothesis that gays and lesbians are more likely to abuse children” (Walker opinion, p. 101), This is an absolute statement. It is also fundamentally flawed and oxymoronic. The courts’ reliance on “science” and “social science data” argues that only “hypotheses” provable by applying the “scientific method” to the data under study are “facts.” But that assertion is itself an hypothesis unprovable by the scientific method. Again, Humanists/Reconstructionists fall on their own sword. Their cherished “Ultimate Source” of “facts” is actually just another value judgment serving Humanistic goals.
4. “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians” (Walker opinion, p. 101). As we noted in our last Court Watch Briefing, the “religious beliefs” which Walker finds so opprobrious are clearly Biblically based, Christian beliefs. This “fact” of “harm” on which Walker focuses is associated with the “legal disadvantages,” “discrimination,” “prejudice against homosexuals,” etc. revealed in the evidence to which Walker gives “judicial notice.”

But this argument commits one of the most widespread and dangerous errors characterizing Humanistic claims on a variety of issues of which homosexual rights are only one, though a most critical, issue. Same-sex marriage bans do indeed distinguish — differentiate — between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. BUT to “distinguish or differentiate”between two opposite categories of behavior is not to inherently “discriminate or disadvantage” in an unconstitutional or invalid manner. A long-established principle of our law is that distinctions between groups are not discriminatory if they are reasonable, rooted in reality, etc. [American courts have distorted this standard by dividing it into three levels: the “rational basis test,” the “heightened scrutiny test,” and the “strict scrutiny test.” These are court-contrived, not constitutionally expressed. But all three recognize that governments may distinguish between conduct/groups for valid reasons.] Indeed, all laws, ipso facto, divide that which they govern into categories, groups, etc., and distinguish between those categories for purposes of law.

Thus, the Walkers of America must explain why “religious beliefs” are not a valid basis for law. But they cannot do this because Walker and Company would have to prove that Scriptural teachings that homosexuality is sinful and wrong are themselves “wrong, invalid, violative of reality, etc. . . .” And Walker’s own god of science/the social sciences is inadequate to this gargantuan task. Thus, homosexual activists are left with assertions about religious beliefs and science/the social sciences that are themselves non-scientific, i.e., are value judgments. And these Humanistic value judgments certainly cannot be scientifically proven superior to Scriptural teachings against homosexual conduct.

Perry/Windsor’s epistemology is AMBIGUOUS. As is obvious from the illustrations above, the Humanistic/Reconstructionist approach to truth and meaning (epistemology) leaves law (and life) in a hopeless and deadly muddle. What we have just seen are the actual out workings of whatSchaefferian scholar Nancy Pearcey has aptly identified as one of the most critical concepts of the contemporary American elite’s basic epistemological position — the “fact/value split.” This split was first identified by Francis Schaeffer as the “upper-lower story split” concerning truth — one of his central themes.

This dichotomy so dear to homosexual rights activists and other Reconstructionists argues that civil law must be based on “facts” — “neutral, objective, public” propositions that are provable by “science” and its progency, especially “the social sciences.” “Moral and religious views and principles” are inherently “non-facts” — they are “biased, subjective, and private” matters not “provable” by science or the social sciences. Christian views and principles are, therefore, inappropriate as proofs in court proceedings such as Perry/Windsor. They are also relegated to the margins of society, having no role to play in the culture in general, not just in law.

But such an epistemology generates specific results that are, as illustrated in Point #1 above, severely ambiguous. That fact alone renders the fact/value split a dangerous and useless fiction. As the plurality justices inPlanned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) opined (correctly for once), “Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” The fact/value split thus falls on the same sword that we have identified already.The assertion of the fact/value theory cannot itself be proven by science/the social sciences — cannot be proven to be a “fact.” Additionally, therefore, which “proofs” relevant to a case are “facts” that courts can/should consider and which “proofs” are “values” which courts must ipso facto disregard or specifically reject?

The answers, of course, lie “in the eye of the beholder” — in the views and values of the judge(s) deciding the case. The real conflict in Perry/Windsorand similar cases is that of the whole Culture War conflict — the War of Worldviews between Humanism/Reconstructionism and the Judeo-Christian/Constitutionalist worldview. What is at stake, as Harold Berman demonstrates in his analysis (to which we have been referring), is the “very collapse of our entire Western legal tradition.” The Perry/Windsorepistemology wreaks havoc with the concepts of absolute truth and inherent logic of the Law — key components of the Western legal tradition outlined by Professor Berman. And as Nancy Pearcey of Houston Baptist University’s Schaeffer Center so cogently states, “The clash between these two understandings of morality [the Judeo-Christian v. the Humanistic] will determine whether liberty is gained or lost in the 21st century. It is imperative to reassert the transcendent moral truths that undergird freedom in every society.”

We will consider Fatal Flaws #3 and #4 in a later Court Watch Briefing.

A Resolution Involving Precinct 32 Committeewoman Patti Anne Lodge

A Resolution Involving Election Qualification

Sponsored By: Blaine County Republican State Committeeman Mitch Hoffman

WHEREAS, District 11 Senator and Precinct 32 Committeewoman Patti Anne Lodge’s residence was removed prior to October 25, 2011, before redistricting was finalized, and

WHEREAS, the homeowner's exemption for 18500 Symms Road, Caldwell, the declared residence of Patti Anne Lodge, was revoked for “no home on this site” on March 21, 2012, and

WHEREAS Patti Anne Lodge has been willfully living at her home at 701 E. Logan Street, Caldwell, which is outside legislative district 11, for over the last two years and has failed to correct the record, and

WHEREAS, Patti Anne Lodge is owner of a house at 21251 Homedale Rd, Caldwell, through her LLC Windridge and chose not to live in District 11, and

WHEREAS, State Senator Patti Anne Lodge violated Article III, section 6 of our state constitution, (“No person shall be a senator or representative who, at the time of his election, is not a citizen of the United States, and an elector of this state, nor anyone who has not been for one year next preceding his election an elector of the county or district whence he may be chosen.”) the Idaho State Republican Party Rules Article IV, Section 8 and Canyon County Bylaws Article III, Section 2, as well as Idaho State Code (ISC) 18:2302, 18-2322, 34-614(2), and 34-624(2), and

WHEREAS, Patti Anne Lodge committed voter fraud by violating ISC18-2322, and

WHEREAS, residence voting exemptions under ISC 34-107 (and under Article VI, section 5 of the State Constitution) do not apply, and

WHEREAS, revocation letters of homeowner exemption, county assessor pictures and records, county permit records and county clerk records showing physical residences and if people voted in a particular election are public records, and

WHEREAS, the residence of Patti Anne can be challenged under ISC 34-431 where the homeowner's exemption being revoked is an admission by Canyon county of such, and

WHEREAS, Idaho State code under 34-2101(2)(4) and the state constitution disqualifies Patti Anne Lodge for the legislative district 11 senator, and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE IDAHO REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE:

Direct the Canyon County Chairman to immediately declare the Precinct 32 Committeeman Seat vacant and no longer recognize Patti Anne Lodge as a member of the Canyon County Central Committee.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

The Canyon County Assessor, Development Services Department (DSD), Canyon County Clerk and Secretary of State immediately make available all county assessor files and pictures, all DSD permit information and all election information and documents pertaining to Patti Anne Lodge to the Attorney General, the members of the Idaho Senate, any federal entity wishing to investigate the Lodges on voter fraud, the general public, and the press.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

The Attorney General under ISC 6-602 pursue prosecution for the usurpation of office of State Senator for Legislative District 11.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

The Attorney General and the Secretary of State investigate the practices of the Canyon County Clerk, especially under 18-2301 and 18-2304.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

The Idaho Senate consider the preceding information for action under Article III section 11 (expulsion of members), since Patti Anne Lodge is disqualified for office.

Friday, December 20, 2013

Patti Anne Lodge Committed Voter Fraud Claims Wrap Sheet

Canyon County, Idaho

1. Patti Anne Lodge willingly made her Sunnyslope residence unlivable before redistricting was finalized by donating it. However, there is no record of permits to move it or place it in residence someplace else in the county Development Services Department records.

2. Patti Anne Lodge no longer had a residence at 18500 Symms Rd to reside in, thus was no longer an elector of Precinct 32, District 11. According to Idaho State Code (ISC) 34-107. "Residence" defined. (1) "Residence," for voting purposes, shall be the principal or primary home or place of abode of a person. Black’s Law Dictionary defines abode as legal residence and legal residence as the place a person spends most of his time and is the home that is recognized by law.

3. Yet, Patti Anne Lodge claimed her Sunnyslope property as her residence on her declaration of candidacy and in documentation to the Idaho Secretary of State and the Canyon County Clerk to run as District 11 Senator and Precinct 32 Committeewoman.

4. While she does own another house inside legislative district 11 under her Windridge LLC at 21251 Homedale Rd Caldwell, she purposefully chose to live outside her legislative district in her house on 703 E. Logan in District 10 that her husband, Federal Judge Edward Lodge inherited and remodeled recently. She chose not to rent any place within her district for a residence, live at her Homedale residence nor move in a temporary residence at 18500 Symms Rd.

5. The lack of construction permits or applications for building permits demonstrates that Patti Anne Lodge has made no conscious effort to reclaim Sunnyslope as a residence. Furthermore, placing a mobile home on the property was only offered after the Press-Tribune exposed Senator Lodge was not living in the district she was elected to represent.

6. Patti Anne Lodge lived outside legislative district 11 for at least 13 months before the 2012 election per proof in fact #1.

a. ISC 18-2301. Official neglect or malfeasance. Every person charged with the performance of any duty, under the provisions of any law of this state relating to elections, who wilfully neglects or refuses to perform it, or who, in his official capacity, knowingly and fraudulently acts in contravention or violation of any of the provisions of such laws, is, unless a different punishment for such acts or omissions is prescribed by this Code, punishable by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five (5) years, or by both and shall in addition thereto, and regardless of whether or not criminal prosecution is undertaken, be subject to removal from office as provided in title 19, chapter 41, Idaho Code.

b. ISC 18-2302. False swearing as to qualifications as voter. Every person who, upon his right to vote being challenged at any election held under the laws of this state, willfully, corruptly and falsely swears touching his qualifications as a voter, is guilty of perjury.

c. ISC 18-2304. Procuring illegal votes. Every person who procures, aids, assists, counsels or advises another to give or offer his vote at any election, knowing that the person is not qualified to vote, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

d. ISC 18-2322. Illegal registration by voter. Any person who shall willfully cause, or endeavor to cause, his name to be registered in any other election district than that in which he resides, or will reside prior to the day of the next ensuing election, except as herein otherwise provided, and any person who shall cause, or endeavor to cause, his name to be registered, knowing that he is not a qualified elector, and will not be a qualified elector on or before the day of the next ensuing election, in the election district in which he causes or endeavors to cause such registry to be made, and any person who shall induce, aid or abet anyone in the commission of either of the acts in this section enumerated and described, shall be fined not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or be confined in the county jail for not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months, or both.

e. ISC 34-107 can be justified by the State Constitution under Article VI, section 5 (Residences for voting purposes not lost or gained).

f. ISC 34-413. Reregistration of elector who changes residence. An elector who moves to another county within the state or to another state within thirty (30) days prior to any election shall be permitted to vote in the ensuing election by absentee ballot. Obviously, Patti Anne Lodge was twelve months outside of this contingency.

g. ISC 34-614. Election of state representatives and senators -- Qualifications. (2) No person shall be elected to the office of representative or senator unless he shall have attained the age of twenty-one (21) years at the time of the general election, is a citizen of the United States and shall have resided within the legislative district one (1) year next preceding the general election at which he offers his candidacy.

h. ISC 34-624. Election of precinct committeemen -- Qualifications. (2) No person shall be elected to the office of precinct committeeman unless he has attained the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of his election, is a citizen of the United States, a registered elector of and shall have resided within the voting precinct for a period of six (6) months next preceding his election.

i. ISC 34-2101. Grounds of contest. The election of any person to any legislative or state executive office may be contested:

2. When the incumbent was not eligible to the office at the time of the election;

4. When the incumbent has given or offered to any elector, or any judge, clerk, or canvasser of the election, any bribe or reward in money or property, for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any violation as set out in chapter 23, title 18, Idaho Code;

j. ISC 6-602. Actions for usurpation of office. An action may be brought in the name of the people of the state against any person who usurps, intrudes into, holds or exercises any office or franchise, real or pretended, within this state, without authority of law. Such action shall be brought by the prosecuting attorney of the proper county, when the office or franchise relates to a county, precinct or city, and when such office or franchise relates to the state, by the attorney general; and it shall be the duty of the proper officer, upon proper showing, to bring such action whenever he has reason to believe that any such office or franchise has been usurped, intruded into, held or exercised without authority of law. Any person rightfully entitled to an office or franchise may bring an action in his own name against the person who has usurped, intruded into, or who holds or exercises the same.

k. Article IV, Section 8 of the Idaho GOP Rules state, The County Central Committee shall appoint by election to fill all vacancies that occur or exist in the offices of Precinct Committeemen. Candidates shall be qualified electors of the precinct.

l. Article III, Section 2 of the Canyon County By-Laws state, Qualifications: All members of the County Central Committee shall be qualified electors of the precinct in which they reside (ISC 34-402/104)

7. Article III, section 6 of the Idaho Constitution states, “No person shall be a senator or representative who, at the time of his election, is not a citizen of the United States, and an elector of this state, nor anyone who has not been for one year next preceding his election an elector of the county or district whence he may be chosen.” Article III, section 11, states, Expulsion of members. Each house may, for good cause shown, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members, expel a member.

8. Verbal inquiries involving the Sunnyslope property and Patti Anne Lodge not living in her legislative district were made early on by several people during the campaign season. Maurice Clements chose to run a clean campaign and stick to the issues at hand, while hoping for Patti Anne Lodge to do the honorable thing.

9. The Canyon County Assessor's Office took away Patti Anne Lodge’s homeowner's exemption for 18500 Symms Rd. According to ISC 63-602G. PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM TAXATION -- HOMESTEAD. (2) The exemption allowed by this section may be granted only if: (a) The homestead is owner-occupied and used as the primary dwelling place of the owner as of January 1, provided that in the event the homestead is owner-occupied after January 1, but before April 15, the owner of the property is entitled to the exemption. The homestead may consist of part of a multi-dwelling or multi-purpose building and shall include all of such dwelling or building except any portion used exclusively for anything other than the primary dwelling of the owner. 63-701. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter:

(2) "Homestead" means the dwelling, owner-occupied by the claimant as described in this chapter

and used as the primary dwelling place of the claimant and may be occupied by any members of the household as their home, and so much of the land surrounding it, not exceeding one (1) acre, as is reasonably necessary for the use of the dwelling as a home. It may consist of a part of a multi-dwelling or multi-purpose building and part of the land upon which it is built. "Homestead" does not include personal property such as furniture, furnishings or appliances, but a manufactured home may be a homestead.

(6) "Occupied" means actual use and possession.

(8) (a) "Primary dwelling place" means the claimant's dwelling place on January 1 or before

April 15 of the year for which the claim is made. The primary dwelling place is the single place where a claimant has his true, fixed and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever the individual is absent he has the intention of returning. A claimant must establish the dwelling to which the claim relates to be his primary dwelling place by clear and convincing evidence or by establishing that the dwelling is where the claimant resided on January 1 or before April 15 and:

1. (i) At least six (6) months during the prior year;

(Will attach homeowner’s exemption information that was just received from the Canyon County Assessor’s office.)

11. This did not trigger any changes in the County Clerk’s office with respect to election status. However according to the Canyon County Clerk’s website http://www.canyonco.org/Elected-Officials/Clerk/Clerk-Elections/FAQ-s.aspx , it is the responsibility of the citizen to re-register if they move either inside or out of a county because a change of precinct, district, county or city change will change the races that the citizen can lawfully vote and/or run for. Voter registration is public knowledge according to ISC 34-4.

12. Senate and House leadership usually inform their respective legislators that temporarily live outside their districts to immediately move back into their districts and give them a deadline to do such. Matters of this nature sometimes occur with marital problems and discretion is needed. Patti Anne Lodge is a senior legislator and should have known better.

13. There has been intimidation for people wishing to collect information and press the matter that Patti Anne Lodge is not living within her district. Furthermore, the fear of retaliation is real. Governor Otter campaigned for Patti Anne Lodge in her last primary race; she is one of four people that have this honor. Patti Anne Lodge is married to an active well-established federal judge as well; Ed Lodge's judicial district is the entire state of Idaho.

14. The Canyon County and the Legislative District 11 Republican Central Committees should pull Patti Anne Lodge's position as a precinct committeeman that she was not qualified to run for. However, they do not have the authority to cause Patti Anne Lodge to lose her Senate position. The Idaho Senate has that responsibility.

Analysis

A. Canyon County Clerk, Chris Yamamoto is the chief election officer of Canyon county. Ben Ysursa is the chief election officer of the state of Idaho and would be a resource Mr. Yamamoto would rely upon in this situation. The evidence shows that 18500 Symms is not Edward and Patti Anne Lodge's residence. Given political pressure and the fact Secretary of State Ben Ysursa has given his position on this matter, there are no assurances this process will be handled in a just or fair way. ISC 18-2304. Procuring illegal votes..

B. The lack of filing for a permit to demolish a house or a permit to move a house that could have potentially triggered internal county software involving election status shows either a disregard for county codes or an intentional deception. Is there a procedure in place for the Canyon County Assessor or Development Services Department to contact the County Clerk's Office when a candidates homeowner's exemption is revoked or a residence is no longer inhabitable? However, it is the responsibility of the candidate/citizen to NOT commit election and/or voter fraud. Officials in public trust positions should avoid the very appearance of fraud, deception and corruption. A senator that has served several terms has to know this by now!

C. The physical location of one's residence determines voting status. Patti Anne Lodge has recently used a Huston PO Box address as her mailing address; the mailing address has no bearing on the matter. If Patti Anne Lodge had moved to the Homedale Rd property and amended the record, the matter would have been moot with respect to her senate seat. However, she still would have had to give up her precinct committeeman seat run or run for the legal precinct in the Canyon County Republican party.

For example, in a neighboring county there is a legislator with a mailing address in a nearby town just over his county's border. During redistricting, the Idaho Statesman misreported the effects of some redistricting plans when they used the mailing address instead of the physical address.

D. The Secretary of State and Senate leadership has some major explaining to do. Protocol would be Secretary of State Ben Ysursa contacts the Senate Pro Tem (Senator Brent Hill) after being informed about the residence problem. It would then be the job of the Senate Pro Tem and the Majority Leader, Senator Bart Davis, to discuss matters with Senator Patti Anne Lodge to bring her in compliance with state laws and the state constitution as soon as possible. Did the following discussion occur and why or why not?

E. Senator Branden Durst recently resigned because he no longer resided in his district.

F. Redistricting caused some major headaches in Bannock, Bonner, Bonneville, Twin Falls, and, most importantly,

Canyon County when it came to drawing precinct and legislative district lines. With respect to the county clerks, many of them had major election-related work that overwhelmed their staff.

The October 2011 photograph proves there was no dwelling at 18500 Symms Road. This is more than a full year before the November 2012 general election and proves Patti Anne Lodge was not eligible to be on the ballot using the Sunnyslope property as her residence, according to the state constitution in Article III, section 6. Article III, section 2, part 5 would define the boundaries used.

Furthermore, claiming this property as a residence for election purposes constitutes fraud.

Filing deadlines for the May 2012 elections also made for some interesting politics as well. Using her residence on

Logan, Patti Anne Lodge would have had to run against Senator Jim Rice, the Governor’s recently appointed senator for district 10. The incumbent Senator in district 11 was Melinda Smyser. Did Patti Anne Lodge cost Melinda Smyser a state senate seat with an improper claiming of her residence?

G. As the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary & Rules committee, she would have been aware of the Bradbury case that went to the Idaho Supreme Court. The court case is only a few years old. Judge Bradbury had a primary residence in Lewiston and a secondary residence in Idaho county. Judge Bradbury wished to save the state of Idaho some money and stay in his second home when he had cases in Idaho county. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled Judge Bradbury could not do this; Judge Bradbury had to either rent a motel room and submit a bill or use his primary residence in Nez Perce county to stay as an eligible judge for that county. A similar standard could be applied to Patti Anne Lodge. At this point in time, it is the purview of the Idaho Senate to determine consequences for Senator Patti Anne Lodge.

H. How can Patti Ann Lodge claim a piece of property as her residence with the home owner's exemption being revoked for a lack of a house? March 2012 is the filing time for public office; yet, her filings claim this same property as her residence during her run for public office as a legislative district senator and a precinct committeewoman.

Republicans To Charge Patti Anne Lodge With Voter Fraud