Home > Uncategorized > BLIND ITEM


WHICH Eureka weight-thrower-arounder is sicking his lawyers on Humboldt County elections official Carolyn Crnich to demand Johanna Rodoni be added as a write-in on the November ballot for supervisor?

  1. Anonymous
    June 5, 2008 at 11:27 pm

    Gordy the Wannabe Sumo Wrestler. I so knew it! Gordy is such a tool. Shame on you Gordy. Stop throwing your weight around.

  2. Anonymous
    June 5, 2008 at 11:28 pm

    Sounds fishy. You can’t throw your weight around an elections office. If a name is put on the ballot improperly, there will be a swift fight and new ballots would have to be issued. It would cost the county an ungodly sum to correct.

  3. OffTheRez
    June 5, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    the Arkley-Emerson-Russ triad is very worried that Humboldt County elections official Carolyn Crnich will not bend to there will. They must get Johanna as write-in or all is lost!

  4. Anonymous
    June 5, 2008 at 11:53 pm

    That’s assuming you believe a vague item posted on an anonymous blog by someone who isn’t exactly a fan of the person you refer to.

  5. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 12:43 am

    Too bad we’re not talking about grow houses. It seems you can have a major grow and walk away with a 30 day vacation. Say goodbye to Arcata if this plea deal gets mentioned in a major newspaper.

  6. gulo gordo
    June 6, 2008 at 12:43 am

    Looks to me like OTR, gg and ribeye have heard similar things. I dunno who OTR or ribeye are, but I’m me and I heard it thru the grapevine and know that source is fine.

    How many times has Arkley’s lawyer contacted Elections?

    And what his standing to protest, anyway? As campaign contributor?

  7. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 2:35 am

    What? You say you heard a rumor and other people heard a rumor? Well, when lots of people hear the same rumor, it must be true! Good thing we have the Herald here to help spread rumors.

  8. Steve Lewis
    June 6, 2008 at 5:37 am

    Which professional Anonymous rumor-monger named “Heraldo” works in the County Courthouse or at the Times-Standard?

  9. Anon
    June 6, 2008 at 5:51 am

    How does one add a write-in candidate to the ballot? Aren’t write-in candidates by definition people who are not on the ballot? This seems spurious.

  10. June 6, 2008 at 6:24 am

    To be a write in candidate you still have to file papers, get a certain amount of nominating signatures and so forth. Just writing in a candidates name when the papers haven’t been filed does nothing. Those kind of write in votes don’t count, or so I’ve been told.

    I believe your polling place should have a list of eligible write in candidates, although it may not be complete.

    Years ago, I suggested to the, then Chair, of the Humboldt Libertarians that we get some names on the ballot for County Central Committee. Problem was, it was past the deadline to file and actually have the names appear on the ballot. He ended up filing papers for himself as a write in candidate.

    When I went to vote and filled in his name, the gal at the polling place noted that and told me I couldn’t write anyone in unless they were on a list she showed me. I assured her that our Chair should have been on that list as he filed the proper paperwork, albeit too late to be on the official list.

    I went ahead and voted and called the Chair some days later to find out the the votes, all ten or twelve of them, had indeed been counted.

  11. Jane Doe
    June 6, 2008 at 7:09 am

    It does seem peculiar that the E-R hasn’t had a word about Johanna Rodoni running in November as a write-in or on the ballot, at least not in their online version.

  12. Andrew Bird
    June 6, 2008 at 7:13 am

    I don’t see how they have any legitimate argument that Johanna can qualify as a write-in candidate for the runoff. She had plenty of time to mount a write-in candidacy for the primary but declined to do so.

  13. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 7:16 am

    How about… The state of California says so. Good enough?

  14. Jane Doe
    June 6, 2008 at 7:26 am

    A report by a newspaper that a spokesman for the SOS gave an opinion that makes no sense when you look at the specific law, which they didn’t cite, regarding run-off elections is not good enough. Pardon us for being skeptical.

  15. Zod
    June 6, 2008 at 7:38 am

    Yep, the Secretary of State’s Office spokesperson is not a reliable source for elections information. Yep. Mmm hmm. Good advice Jane.

    Me? I’m waiting for Jesus to appear and tell me the answer because the Secretary of State’s office has NO BUSINESS saying anything about election law! Shame on them! They act like they’re in charge of state elections! The gall! They should bow to our anonymous blog comments! Kneel before us! Kneel before Zod!

  16. Zod
    June 6, 2008 at 7:43 am

    When I first came to your planet and demanded your homes, property and very lives, I didn’t know you were already doing so, willingly, with your own government. I can win no tribute from a bankrupted nation populated by feeble flag-waving plebeians.

    In 2008 I shall restore your dignity and make you servants worthy of my rule. This new government shall become a tool of my oppression. Instead of hidden agendas and waffling policies, I offer you direct candor and brutal certainty. I only ask for your tribute, your lives, and your vote.

    Write “Zod” in on every blank line in your November ballot.

    — General Zod
    Your Future President and Eternal Ruler

  17. Jane Doe
    June 6, 2008 at 7:46 am

    Now you are just being ridiculous. We have only a newspaper’s interpretation of what the spokesperson for the SOS said and the section of law they cited isn’t the section that deals with run-off elections. A report in an editorial about what the SOS said isn’t an official announcement either. I’ll wait for an official decision on this, not a reported opinion.

  18. Ed
    June 6, 2008 at 8:03 am

    It’s amusing that after weeks of scheming ,the cabal over at the Avalon decided not to have Johanna run in her own right as a write-in candidate and actually win. Now, the best these geniuses can come up with is to have their muscle lean on our county’s election officer to get what should have been attempted in the first place. If the rules are clear, why doesn’t the shovemeister let democracy work? OH, right.

  19. Jane Doe
    June 6, 2008 at 8:09 am

    Shovemeister :P

  20. June 6, 2008 at 8:09 am

    Which professional Anonymous rumor-monger named “Heraldo” works in the County Courthouse or at the Times-Standard?

    For the love of Gawd Steve Lewis, will you get it right! You forgot to call him a Zionist!!!

    I guess you are slipping, and have forgot what “Steve Lewis being Steve Lewis” is all about.

    Of course this “blind Item” is not in the papers. Who is to say that if word gets out (through official channels) that Arkley and his handlers are snooping around the County Elections Office, it would cause the stir it seems to be causing here?

    I would not be surprised if this heads for court. Of course, I am still a skeptic when it comes to the idea that Johanna would see this through.


  21. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 8:11 am

    “If someone wins outright in June, then there would be no election in November. But if no one wins outright in June, there is no provision preventing her from running as a write-in candidate in the general election,” she said.

    Yeah Jane, because a direct quote is so ambiguous. Spreading more misinformation on blogs won’t change reality for you Jane. So sorry. The facts are not in your favor, again.

  22. McKinleyvillan
    June 6, 2008 at 8:16 am

    Can’t wait for those end-of-campaign donation reports to come out! When will that be, August? Isn’t it inspiring that the rich and powerful can’t buy elections around here?

  23. Jane Doe
    June 6, 2008 at 8:24 am

    Too bad you won’t use an ID so we can point out how many times the facts aren’t in your favor, 8:11. There are inquiries in the pipeline as to the law in this regard. We have plenty of time to wait for the answers.

  24. Ed
    June 6, 2008 at 8:25 am

    Isn’t it inspiring that the rich and powerful can’t buy elections around here?
    Yes. Maybe it’s because many of us remember that “money doesn’t talk, it swears”. Thanks Bob.

  25. Eurekev
    June 6, 2008 at 8:25 am

    The folks on the political right are just not wired to play by the rules. I work with a pile of them, and rules are what you try to get around.

    It’s the same thing that allows you to proclaim yourself a great patriot while you scream for more ass-wiping with the constitution. Or put your Support the Troops stickers on the car, but scream when the bill comes due at home.

    It’s the same thing that allows you to follow the Prince of Peace on Sunday, while you support invading and killing poor people across the world.

    I’m sure in their little backroom meetings, there is plenty of rah rah hoo ha about the great work they are performing for this unappreciative populace.

  26. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 8:27 am

    These ilk don’t believe in democracy. Got that?

  27. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 8:34 am

    We progressives don’t have to play by your silly rules, even if they’re called “laws.” Kneel before Zod!

  28. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 8:46 am

    So who’s in on those Avalon meetings? Arkley, Barnam, Flemming, Kramer, Crawford, Hum CPR Reps

    Who else gets invited to these sessions?

  29. Anony.Miss
    June 6, 2008 at 8:47 am

    Eurekev- the left wing is just as annoying as the right wing. Being entitled to free stuff, always asking for a way to fund everything without spending personal dollars, smug attitude, always bitter about those with money, and there is some rule-breaking on that side as well. I think the best of the best, and the solution lies right in the middle somewhere. I would choose not to affiliate with either the right or the left.

  30. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 8:53 am

    I believe the middle ground is the law. Try abiding it rather than sidestepping it. Write-in candidates are allowed, even if you don’t like the candidate.

  31. Steve Lewis
    June 6, 2008 at 10:28 am

    The election law is flawed in dealing with the Roger/Johanna situation. That much should be obvious to all by now.

    What are elections in America all about? Democracy. What actions are necessary to protect democratic representation in the 2nd District Supervisor race? That’s what we all need to focus on. Making sure the 2nd District majority voters are not disenfranchised. Anything less is only political manipulation to gain unfair advantage in November.

  32. June 6, 2008 at 10:31 am

    the rodonis didnt recieve 50%+1 of the vote in the primary. that disqualified them from the runoff……thats it, its over….

  33. anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 10:35 am

    Nothing is free Anony.Miss. “Always asking for a way to fund everything without spending personal dollars, smug attitude” Gee, that sounds like the attitude of the Bush administration to a tee. Righties like spending lot’s of tax money on their defense contractors, but they don’t want to pay any taxes so why not shift the debt to someone else, like their grand kids. They don’t envy the rich, they compete to see who can be the richest, and bending or breaking the rules in their favor is just being more competitive. “Being entitled to free stuff”, I can’t think of anyone that would willingly want to be a single mom on section 8 and food stamps that wants to be in that situation. Let’s cut her off and make her homeless. Do ya think that your upbringing and education might have helped you to get where you are, or did you pull yourself up by your bootstraps and succeed without help from anybody?

  34. anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 10:45 am

    8:53, your smug pronouncement is bullshit. The law in this case is ambiguous and can be interpreted in several ways. Why the fuck do you think there are courts, and appeals courts.

  35. Jane Doe
    June 6, 2008 at 10:45 am

    I agree Anonymous 10:35. I would add that most people I know on the left don’t care about how much money someone has. We just don’t want it used as a megaphone to amplify their political speech to add to their advantage.

  36. anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 10:47 am

    Lewis, your democracy bullshit is making me gag, enough already.

  37. Paid Disruptor
    June 6, 2008 at 10:50 am

    8:53, your smug pronouncement is bullshit.

    Thanks for the profanity. It looks like your only option is to sue because, hey, the SOS disagrees with you. Good luck with that.


  38. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 10:52 am

    I wasn’t aware that Theo rewrote or is the legal interpreter of state law. I am in awe.

  39. anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Stay in school paid dipshit, you’ll get it eventually.

  40. Paid Disruptor
    June 6, 2008 at 10:55 am

    Stay in school paid dipshit, you’ll get it eventually.

    That’s it, your intellect has convinced me. The Secretary of State is wrong. You are right. I’m sure the elections office will pay attention to 10:54 and Jane and Theo instead of the Secretary of State. Game over. Time for Johanna to go home.

  41. anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Like I said, stay in school, learn a thing or two, then enter the game.

  42. Jane Doe
    June 6, 2008 at 11:05 am

    There are lots of people who think this spokesman from the SOS got it wrong including attorneys who have researched it. The SOS is not the final word, the courts are. You may be willing to give up based on the word of a reporter from the sub-standard, but I’ll wait for a definitive legal decision.

  43. Paid Disruptor
    June 6, 2008 at 11:15 am

    Yes, lots of blog commenters are convinced Johanna is ruined. Not coincidentally, they all oppose her candidacy. I suggest you sue if you think SOS is wrong, but I think you’re SOL.

  44. June 6, 2008 at 11:20 am

    Hmmm. Okay, I’m sending my letter off shortly.

  45. Jane Doe
    June 6, 2008 at 11:22 am

    There are no grounds for a suit as yet and since I don’t live in the 2nd district, it isn’t up to me. If there are write-ins allowed in the run-off and someone in the 2nd district doesn’t like it, they will likely file suit. Ernie Branscomb is already talking about it. You keep forgetting that there has been no official announcement from either the SOS or the County Clerk’s office so don’t get your panties in a bunch.

  46. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 11:25 am

    I just don’t understand why we even have a primary election if you’re not trying to narrow it down to two candidates- Can anyone throw their name on the write-in list now?

    Assuming that a write-in policy would create a situation where the candidate with the most votes didn’t get 50% +1 of the votes, then the primary was a complete waste of time.

    If we were to act as if the primary was the November election, would the Governor be allowed to appoint the seat since Roger received the most votes?

  47. Paid Disruptor
    June 6, 2008 at 11:28 am

    I don’t wear panties Jane, but thank you.

    You keep forgetting that there has been no confirmation of your claim to Johanna’s ruin, except for some blog comments. I’m relying upon, oh, the spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s office. Silly, foolish me. If the SOS spokesperson misspoke, I expect there will be a media correction within the next week and no lawsuit.

    I welcome the lawsuit though. If the SOS is sure of itself, I’m sure of the SOS. It will be funny to watch the smackdown of people trying to subvert democracy, this time from the left for a change.

  48. HumboldtBlue
    June 6, 2008 at 11:40 am

    Here’s a link that may help all you … http://www.sos.ca.gov/

    I am no election lawyer, although I play one during impromptu kitchen performances with the cat, but I couldn’t find anything that precludes Johanna from being a write-in candidate in November.

  49. June 6, 2008 at 11:48 am

    You keep forgetting that there has been no official announcement from either the SOS or the County Clerk’s office so don’t get your panties in a bunch.

    Ounce of prevention.

  50. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    You can’t do a search of the code for keywords like “runoff” and “write-in” and think you have your bases covered as armchair quarterbacks, even if you did play college ball. This should be a fun match to watch.

  51. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 12:11 pm

    so don’t get your panties in a bunch.

    Jane, it’s you and your friends clutching panties. Johanna hasn’t even said she’ll try to be a write-in candidate. The SOS spokesperson said she could, and you guys went crazy with fear and outrage. It’s an extreme over-reaction to a situation that hasn’t even presented itself. You won’t hear anything from the election’s office or the SOS unless Johanna does try to run, or a newspaper reporter bothers to ask again and request the relevant government code that backs the decision. Until then, don’t soil yourself.

  52. gulo gordo
    June 6, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    No, 12:11, you have it backwards. The County said she couldn’t, and Arkley “went crazy with fear and outrage.”

  53. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Actually, gordo, you’re basing your opinion on a made-up rumor. This whole thing started with the TS asking a question and you guys turning into Chicken Little on meth.

  54. anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    You’re the only one on meth 12:21, the rest of us just want to see everybody play by the rules, the same rules

  55. gulo gordo
    June 6, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    No, it started with Arkley sending his lawyer to browbeat the county into letting Johanna (improperly) file as a write-in.

    I heard about it, as did others in this small county, and we told you about it.

    Nice image, though I think Lord Arkley prefers liquid depressants to powdered amphetamines.

  56. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    For me the bottom line is Johanna decided against a write-in campaign, gambling that her sympathy vote would give her an outright majority. That was the campaign she lost by a 10 percent margin. Now she wants to start a new campaign, with a different name, and a different strategy. just as if she didn’t just lose her primary campaign.

    Who does she think she is, Joe Lieberman?

  57. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Sorry, she “may want.” She may not, and I sure don’t want to pressure her!

  58. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Joe won his write-in effort against all odds. Bad example if you don’t like Johanna.

  59. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    He shows what’s possible. Johanna showed what isn’t. Mayhap we fret overmuch.

  60. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Well, if Johanna has no chance as you say, why fret over her running at all? Oh, because she does have a chance, otherwise you would be so worried and theorizing about legal action to stop her.

  61. Babushka
    June 6, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    WHO is Arkley’s lawyer who is alleged to have pressured the elections staff? Someone local?

  62. Jane Doe
    June 6, 2008 at 2:22 pm

    This isn’t just about this run-off election or Johanna Rodoni. If she can run as a write-in, so can anyone else who wasn’t on the ballot, in this and future run-offs.

  63. Anonymous
    June 6, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    Yes, that is the way California elections work.

  64. June 6, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Yes, that is the way California elections work.

    Yes and no. Different counties have handled it differently, and I’m surprised it hasn’t come up in a court case yet.

    But I’ve a feeling it’s going to be resolved statewide now, one way or another.

  65. Oh boy
    June 6, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    If write-ins are allowable, this will become a de-facto plurality election. Whoever gets the most votes will win.

    The entire game is new already. Adding write-ins would completely change it once again.

    Great stuff.

  66. Not A Native
    June 6, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    Anon 12:41
    Lieberman didn’t run a write-in campaign, he ran as an independent, name on the ballot. Also, he was an elected incumbent.

    The purpose of a run-off is to have a person in office who was found preferable by a majority of voters. In that way, an officeholder truly has the “consent of the governed”, insofar as compromise is the basis for a government of unity.

    Since we don’t have a proportional representation system of government, election by majority encourages coalition formation and discourages the continuance of factions. I’d say that would be a good thing for Humboldt, especially the 2nd district.

  67. J.P.
    June 7, 2008 at 12:21 am

    Yes, Lieberman did not run as a write-in. What happened was there was a Democratic Party primary, and Lieberman lost big to Lamont, who was running on an anti-war platform. So Lieberman decided to run in the general election as an independent. He won in a three-way-race with Lamont and a very forgettable Republican. It wasn’t a run-off intended to create a majority winner, elections don’t work that way in Connecticut (unfortunately) – it was just a plurality that Lieberman won.

    So that was a case of a partisan primary election, and then a seperate general election, and no one running as a write-in. Basically nothing to do with this situation at all.

  68. June 7, 2008 at 11:19 am

    If write-ins are allowable, this will become a de-facto plurality election. Whoever gets the most votes will win.

    Where does the code say that?

  69. HumRed
    June 8, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    JD says most people on the left don’t care how much money you have, your such a groupie.
    Arkley and his handlers, give me a break if you had any sense of reality or had dealt with RA you would know his only handler is his partner in life, his wife.
    Gee how many comments till some sharp lefty compared this situation to the bush administration.
    I have been busy last couple of days so I looked at you’alls sillyness just now. Who needs TV, all the non-reality you can handle right here.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s