Conroe Courier Editorial 6/25/2010
2
A.D. Heath <[email protected]> RE: Residency Editorial 1 message Jim Fredricks <[email protected]> Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:59 PM To: HEATH for COUNTY JUDGE <[email protected]> Adrian I think this is the one you are looking for; it doesn't appear to have been loaded online. My focus was the need for the state to take a closer look at residency standards and define them beer to eliminate confusion over the law. Next week, if you can, I'd be curious to talk with you about the underlying issue that prompted all this in the first place -- the oddity of a taxing district run by a board elected by a handful of voters that the district on some occasions forgot were even there. With the recent ruling by a state district judge in an election challenge involving the Woodlands Road Utility District, a little clarity has been added to the state's rules regarding voter residency. A little. But not enough. Based on “clear and convincing” evidence, a visiting state district court judge ruled Monday that 10 Montgomery County residents voted fraudulently in The Woodlands Road Utility District No. 1 election and declared the three incumbent board members as the rightful winners of the May 8 contest. According to our story by Howard Roden, Senior District Judge P.K. Reiter issued his decision after a trio of challengers to the election – Richard McDuffee, Peter Goeddertz and Bill Berntsen – each captured an at-large position of the RUD’s board by a 10-2 margin. Their victory prompted the three incumbents – Gene “Ed” Miller, Bill Neill and Winton Davenport – to file suit against the RUD May 11, alleging those 10 votes were obtained illegally. Prior to the May 8 election, the 10 individuals changed their voter’s registration address to 9333 Six Pines Drive in The Woodlands, the location of a Residence Inn hotel. Eight of the individuals – excluding Cook and Doyle – made it clear during their testimony it was their intent to establish the hotel as their residence and take control of the RUD board. Their argument, which pushed the envelope on voter residency, was based in part on the sometimes confusing, sometimes vague, case law and attorney general opinions that have built up over time. And while claiming a hotel as a residence immediately prior to an election may be a stretch, it's not the first or last time votes have been cast in Texas under questionable circumstances. And local officials acknowledge the laws, which often have been intrepreted so loosely that residency is seen as a "state of mind," need clarification. In fact, in a statement released Saturday, losing Conroe City Council Candidate Leo Hewett claimed there were instances in his election in which voters may have cast votes fraudulently claiming residence. Hewett said in the statement that his legal teams have completed a review of the Conroe election and other Montgomery County elections. “Irregularities” were discovered which could affect elections in Conroe and within the county, according to the statement, and included the claim that there were voters who lived outside the city but claimed residency and voted in the election Local officials acknowledge the law allows a great deal of latitude. "I see why there are questions," said Montgomery County Elections Administrator Carol Gaultney. ".They (voters in question) don't live in the city of Conroe, so why are they voting in the city? Stating that she doesn't have the authority to reject a voter's application and claims of residency, Gaultney said: "I understand the questions, .but we don't understand those voters circumstances either." First Assistant District Attorney Phil Grant, in an interview prior to the judge's ruling, said the law needs more clarity. " I think it would be helpful if the secretary of state would put forth some clear guidelines regarding the definition of residency, rather than leaving it as vague as they have in prior opinions." That would be one place to start. A. D. Heath Mail - RE: Residency Editorial https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=5d114a57ba&view=pt&q=wood... 1 of 2 3/24/2012 5:23 PM
-
Upload
countycitizen -
Category
Documents
-
view
13 -
download
0
description
Editorial discussing vagueness of residence law written by Editor Husband of Vice Chairman of Texas Republican Party
Transcript of Conroe Courier Editorial 6/25/2010
A.D. Heath <[email protected]>
RE: Residency Editorial1 message
Jim Fredricks <[email protected]> Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:59 PM
To: HEATH for COUNTY JUDGE <[email protected]>
Adrian
I think this is the one you are looking for; it doesn't appear to have been loaded online. My focus was the need for the state to
take a closer look at residency standards and define them be�er to eliminate confusion over the law.
Next week, if you can, I'd be curious to talk with you about the underlying issue that prompted all this in the first place -- the
oddity of a taxing district run by a board elected by a handful of voters that the district on some occasions forgot were even
there.
With the recent ruling by a state district judge in an election challenge involving the Woodlands Road Utility District, a little clarity has
been added to the state's rules regarding voter residency.
A little. But not enough.
Based on “clear and convincing” evidence, a visiting state district court judge ruled Monday that 10 Montgomery County residents
voted fraudulently in The Woodlands Road Utility District No. 1 election and declared the three incumbent board members as the
rightful winners of the May 8 contest.
According to our story by Howard Roden, Senior District Judge P.K. Reiter issued his decision after a trio of challengers to the
election – Richard McDuffee, Peter Goeddertz and Bill Berntsen – each captured an at-large position of the RUD’s board by a 10-2
margin. Their victory prompted the three incumbents – Gene “Ed” Miller, Bill Neill and Winton Davenport – to file suit against the
RUD May 11, alleging those 10 votes were obtained illegally.
Prior to the May 8 election, the 10 individuals changed their voter’s registration address to 9333 Six Pines Drive in The Woodlands,
the location of a Residence Inn hotel. Eight of the individuals – excluding Cook and Doyle – made it clear during their testimony it
was their intent to establish the hotel as their residence and take control of the RUD board.
Their argument, which pushed the envelope on voter residency, was based in part on the sometimes confusing, sometimes vague,
case law and attorney general opinions that have built up over time.
And while claiming a hotel as a residence immediately prior to an election may be a stretch, it's not the first or last time votes have
been cast in Texas under questionable circumstances. And local officials acknowledge the laws, which often have been intrepreted
so loosely that residency is seen as a "state of mind," need clarification. In fact, in a statement released Saturday, losing Conroe
City Council Candidate Leo Hewett claimed there were instances in his election in which voters may have cast votes fraudulently
claiming residence. Hewett said in the statement that his legal teams have completed a review of the Conroe election and other
Montgomery County elections. “Irregularities” were discovered which could affect elections in Conroe and within the county,
according to the statement, and included the claim that there were voters who lived outside the city but claimed residency and voted
in the election
Local officials acknowledge the law allows a great deal of latitude. "I see why there are questions," said Montgomery County
Elections Administrator Carol Gaultney. ".They (voters in question) don't live in the city of Conroe, so why are they voting in the
city? Stating that she doesn't have the authority to reject a voter's application and claims of residency, Gaultney said: "I understand
the questions, .but we don't understand those voters circumstances either."
First Assistant District Attorney Phil Grant, in an interview prior to the judge's ruling, said the law needs more clarity. " I think it
would be helpful if the secretary of state would put forth some clear guidelines regarding the definition of residency, rather than
leaving it as vague as they have in prior opinions." That would be one place to start.
A. D. Heath Mail - RE: Residency Editorial https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=5d114a57ba&view=pt&q=wood...
1 of 2 3/24/2012 5:23 PM
Jim Fredricks
Editor and Publisher
The Courier
100 Ave. A
Conroe, TX 77301
(936) 521-3400
FAX (936) 521-3302
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of HEATH for COUNTY JUDGE
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 1:44 PM
To: Jim Fredricks
Subject: Fwd: Residency Editorial
Someone said you wrote an editorial about voter residency last week. I can not find the link in the advanced search
HEATH FOR COUNTY JUDGE
Adrian David Heathwww.countyjudge.org
832-978-1602
Political Advertisement paid for by Adrian David Heath for County Judge
A. D. Heath Mail - RE: Residency Editorial https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=5d114a57ba&view=pt&q=wood...
2 of 2 3/24/2012 5:23 PM
![Tracks Training [Read-Only] - Conroe ISD](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/61bd433961276e740b110447/tracks-training-read-only-conroe-isd.jpg)
