I heard the same a few minutes ago from someone affiliated with his campaign.

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/freshloaf/2008/07/14/jim-powell-back-on-the-ballot/#comment-84530

I accidently copied my link to the comment. You can just snip that if you want.

let's make sure that we get the word out even louder than the original piece of information. Karen Handel is trying to be Katherine Harris. She's doing a damn good job of it too.

Katherine Harris? Okaaaaaaay.

Pink Sugar!

She doesn't wear nearly enough make-up to be Katherine Harris. Although the election-fixing fits.

If you want to make political hay by rolling out the Kitty card, okay. That's certainly fair. Fraught with peril but fair.

But the only things about the two that are the same is that they are Republican, Secretaries of State and female.

I think the comparison is more than fair. They've both tried to play partisan games to influence elections. Granted, Harris is a bit, no a lot, more of a ditz, but the motivations are still the same.

This will most likely stay in effect unless the Superior Court judge sees fit to overturn it. Remember, this most likely wouldn't have been an issue if his opponent, Bob Indech, hadn't played this game earlier in filing the original challenge.

It also wouldn't have been an issue if Powell had changed his homestead. I'm sure the differing tax bills in Cobb and Towns had nothing to do with that.

Case No. 2008CV153541

JAMES R. POWELL VS. KAREN HANDEL, GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE

http://www.fcclkjudicialsearch.org/Scripts/UVlink.isa/tsgdb1/WEBSERV/PUBCivilSearch?action%253Dview%26track%253D619500 is the URL.

Unfortunately it doesn't mention a stay, just that the case was filed. Other docs would have to come from the clerk's office I guess.

Loaf also has a link to the stay.

Except KH hasn't used her partisanship to influence the race.

It is the SOS' job to make sure that candidates meet the election criteria necessary to run. They have their own, and a the courts have their own. JP failed the SOS' standards (And correct me if I am wrong but a Dem brought up the residency challenge).

Grift, IRE, this is why people are making the Harris comparison. The SOS submits ballot challenges to an Administrative Law Judge and then historically follows the recommendation of the judge. In this case, which seems to be the first in memory for anyone I've talked to (and a lot of them are election law experts with long memories) Handel is cherry picking some of the findings of fact and ruling contrary to what the independent ALJ has advised.

Notice the difference between the Gross PDF and the Powell one. The Gross PDF is from the judge, the Powell one is from Handel. Now, why even submit it to the ALJ if you're just going to make up your own justification anyway.

Chris, I understand why people are upset. Hell, I even said it myself that it is a partisan move. But in my opinion, being someone who's followed Harris a little closer than 8 year old clips from CNN and the movie Recount, there's no comparison. Other than the ones I've mentioned.

Frankly, Harris is not savvy enough to pull such a move.

Exactly, Chris! Mr Cranky (aka JerryT) has been ranting about this for hours now! What is the damn point of having a judge rule if the SOS is going to use their own rules after all. It stinks.

I'm looking for the procedure now. In my old department decisions from the Administrative Hearing Officers went to a commissioner appointed Board of Appeals and then to the Superior Court. But the SOS is has much more regulatory power so I suspect the SOS itself substitutes for a Board of Review in between the ALJ and Superior Court. If that's the case then although it may seem strange to a layperson, this is exactly the way it works. Although as noted it doesn't happen that often. If I find something I'll post it.

And I've been waiting for the JerryT rant all day!

I got this from the Powell camp this afternoon: "...just got a stay from a Fulton County Superior Court Judge, so... [Jim Powell] remain a candidate. The appeal will follow."

I think this is Really, Really, Dirty, but again par for the course. Why anything is allowed just a day or so out from an election is pretty egregious. By any standards. If we ever get a DoJ back worthy of the name (instead of a Dept of Injustice & Obstruction of Justice), this national campaign of Voter Suppression and election obstruction will be fully investigated. Iran does this, but hey they torture too. The Rule of Law & the Constitution Must be restored & the miserable autocratic loving miscreants punished.

Cheers & Good Luck, J.M. Prince

Found it. It appears that each agency is allowed to set its own procedure in modifying or even rejecting a hearing officers finding. In the case of my agency it was a board of review. Apparently with the SOS the Secretary itself retains the power.

Although the code doesn't specify in this section the appropriate place to contest a modification or rejection is Superior Court. I ain't taking the time to find that one. You'll just have to trust me.

Relevant section is O.C.G.A. 50-13-41 (d) and (e).

(d)[portion describing the ability to take additional evidence]... If the reviewing agency rejects or modifies a proposed finding of fact or a proposed decision, it shall give reasons for doing so in writing in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

(e)(1) A reviewing agency shall have a period of 30 days following the entry of the decision of the administrative law judge in which to reject or modify such decision. If a reviewing agency fails to reject or modify the decision of the administrative law judge within such 30 day period, then the decision of the administrative law judge shall stand affirmed by the reviewing agency by operation of law.

Oh I found the other.

It's 21-2-5

It outlines it goes from ALJ-SOS-Superior Court and if further to the Court of Appeals.

The elector filing the challenge or the candidate challenged shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by filing a petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County within ten days after the entry of the final decision by the Secretary of State. The filing of the petition shall not itself stay the decision of the Secretary of State; however, the reviewing court may order a stay upon appropriate terms for good cause shown. As soon as possible after service of the petition, the Secretary of State shall transmit the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceedings under review to the reviewing court. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of the Secretary of State are:

I got this notice from the Jim Powell campaign just about an hour ago. I'm posting it here in the interest of Justice, and because I think Mr. Powell has been wronged & injured by the process the SoS Karen Handel has pursued so far, especially in her 'secret ruling' which did not inform candidates of her actions until 'the last minute'. This does not constitute any candidate endorsement from me.

But please pass this along to others in the interest of Justice & Fair play. Thanks again & Cheers,
J.M. Prince

[Below is Mr. Jim Powell's note in full with the relevant links]
Here's the AJC story today:
[http://www.ajc.com/news/content/business/stories/2008/07/14/psc_candidate.html]

"I would appreciate your help in getting this message out to as many
Democrats as possible. Also, if anyone saw any notice regarding my
disqualification today when they when they went to their precinct to
vote, I need to know about it. We already have a number of examples
and I am making a list for the Attorney General. Thanks. Jim.

Friends

In a partisan political move Secretary of State Karen Handel
disqualified me as a candidate on Thursday, July 10th but failed to
notify me. I heard about it on Sunday night from the rumor mill and
called yesterday to confirm the rumor. My attorneys went to the
Fulton County Superior Court and a Judge issued a Stay. After the
election today, I will go back to the Superior Court and formally
appeal Handel's decision. In her decision to disqualify me, Secretary
Handel overturned a Judge's decision (June 24) that had already
determined that I am a resident. This partisan action has received
considerable play in the media and I just wanted to assure you that I
am committed as ever to being elected to the Public Service Commission
in November. In fact, Handel's decision has made me more determined
if that is possible.

So, the good news is that I am still a candidate and I expect to win
today. Thanks for your thoughts and prayers. Please remember to vote
for me today in the Democratic Primary. Your support is very
important to me.

To help clarify the events, my son put up a post on last night that
does a great job at articulating what happened yesterday. Please
check it out: http://www.infoaccelerator.net/blog/post.cfm/close-encounters-with-dirty-georgia-politics

Here is the link to the AJC article:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/business/stories/2008/07/14/psc_candidate.html

All 159 Election Boards have been ordered to remove all signs, posters
or notices regarding the disqualification. When you go and vote today
please look around to make sure this happened. Should you find any
such sign, poster or notice that addresses the disqualification, I
need to know about it ASAP.

Regards, Jim".

[END of Quote].

Please see that this message gets out to everyone. Thanks. JMP

I've got a Longer post on this issue waiting for moderation. Please approve it. Thanks. JMP

Sorry JM. We have moderation off, but sometimes if a post is very long or contains a lot of URLs, the software catches it.

Glad to hear he's back on the ballot, since we've already voted for Powell.

I gotta feel that this isn't over by a long shot.
If he wins, Handel gets her appeal.
If he loses, he has a couple of different ways to challenge, including the failure to remove the signage.

Yet another special election in our future? Anything we should be thinking about to prepare for it?

what happens if Jim wins and Harris...I mean Handle disqualifies him after the fact-is there a den candidate on the Nov ballot?
Why are so many being disqualified so close to the election day? I thought these things were supposed to be taken care of when candidates "qualify".

Well after the primary the party can replace DQed candidates. At least in the Gen Assembly. I would assume any race though.

Not only did I not see a notice about the Powell DQ, but Erik Underwood was still on my ballot as well and I didn't see a notice that he had been DQ'ed.

Erik was still on mine too, and no signage -- Precinct Fulton-01B (Nan's!)

i third that, i had both powell and underwood on my ballot with no signage. which is fine for powell, though there should have been a sign for underwood....though i gotta say, i'm not too worried about nan's safety

Folks you need to be bringing this to the attention of the poll managers!

The AJC editorial board seems to be enjoying watching our SOS squirm. Today's news cycle on the Powell disqualification controversy doesn't add much to the debate other than proof that Handel has a very thin skin. Even so, I wonder if this is likely to change any minds about her. It seems more likely they are just sticking a finger in her eye for the sake of doing it. I'm a little fearful that all of this exposure for Powell just makes him more of a target for the Rs down the road.

Hopefully, "target of the R's" means they spend more times/energy/money fighting battles they will lose.

Let them attack. We can't really stop them anyway. What we need is strong candidates who can withstand it!