“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.

* WyomingNews.com

 

One Comment

  1. Susan Graham

    Wyoming Net, I am glad that in other editorials you have made clear your support for and dedication to Ms. Hageman since this explains the perspective of your editorial on Dr. Haynes’ and his supporters’ situation. I am also grateful to you for making the actual court ruling and SOS press release available for voters to review on their own. After a close reading of both I had some thoughts:

    Can the SOS be sued for interfering with the status quo of the electoral process by raising the alleged residency issue in the first place AND continuing to raise the same doubt with his recent press release? The title of the SOS’s August 3rd press release about Judge Campbell’s ruling implies that Taylor is not eligible. That is FALSE. The ruling itself says,”a finding of ineligibly (sic)…cannot be made at this point” (Point #12). Moreover, in point #10 the ruling says that based on affidavits and assertions of both parties the court doubts the likelihood that the SOS would prevail in establishing ineligibility due to residency anyway. That piece needs to be repeated since it is about the residency issue: the court doubts the likelihood that the SOS would prevail in establishing ineligibility due to residency. Please review this point in the ruling yourself.

    I find your likening of Haynes situation to an illegal alien a non sequitor–one is not like the other at all. Did you know that HB002 added the phrase “residence address” to possible offenses on March 3, 2018. This legislation made it unanimously through the house and had only 14 nays in the senate before being signed into law by Governor Mead on March 10th.

    Here’s a timeline to consider: Ed Buchanan stepped down as Ms. Hageman’s campaign director in February 2018 to be appointed by Matt Mead as SOS. Then the addition to HB0002 happens in early March. Maybe there’s no coincidence in the addendum and the appointment, but Haynes was not the only one to know that County Clerk Gonzalez made something of the alleged residence issue back in late 2014 and 2015. This timeline of events seems to me to be suspect.

    Having supported Haynes for governor in 2014 yourself, you know he has played an extensive role in Wyoming for over 34 years. His integrity, honesty, work ethic, and honor do not deserve to be impugned by either the intentions of the SOS to “protect” Wyoming voters or you who are now a dedicated supporter of Ms Hageman.

Comments are closed.