“While the state found the ranch’s house lies in Colorado, Pearce said the property should still qualify as a Wyoming residence, even though Haynes does not use the property as his primary residence.”* Really!? So, Haynes’ attorney, an officer of the court, acknowledges the property is in Colorado yet opines we should ignore state lines and legal jurisdictions.
Let’s see how this plays out. If the court rules in favor of Haynes’ attorney’s argument: then a Mexican who came to America illegally, his residence is in Mexico that he is not using as his primary abode, claims he lives in Wyoming because he has a mailing address in Wyoming, therefore the illegal alien becomes a bonafide Wyomingite and could run for public office.
Wyomingites really need to look at this issue carefully. Are we, or are we not, champions of the law? Do Wyoming statutes mean anything, its constitution, the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence? If this issue is not addressed and should Haynes win the election, he would win illegally! Thus we would have a person in office that is not legally entitled to the position. Are the people of Wyoming just going to look the other way? What about the second runner-up? Do you think he would just give up, or contest the election? How long, and how much money will be spent, fighting this issue? If Haynes were to be elected, and subsequently removed form office, how many laws that he might have signed into law that would be challenged.
Many voters claim they want transparency, but how many of those that do are willing to ignore the law? Is transparency only pertinent to those politicians you do not like?
And what will happen if the court allows Haynes to be eligible? What will happen to property rights in Wyoming? Will future candidates that do not live in Wyoming claim an address here, thus meet the court’s decision?
At the end of the day, the sole person that is responsible for this mess is Haynes. He was notified in 2014-15 that he did not meet the requirement for voting. Haynes should have known the five year continuous residency requirement. If he felt his ranch was truly a Wyoming residence, it begs the question why he did not address it when the county clerk notified him. It also begs another question, why did Haynes change his residence address after being notified of ineligibility of voting in Wyoming.
Pearce, Haynes’ attorney, claims the Secretary of State made a mistake, and implies that every man, woman and child in Wyoming must live by one man’s mistake forever. He said further, “Removing (Haynes) from the ballot will violate a cornerstone of American political structure.”* I beg to differ, we live in a Constitutional Republic that values the rule of law, ignoring the law does violate the cornerstone of the American political structure!
I thought stuff like this only happens in California.