Legislature can change election laws

Editor,

The new theory advanced by the Missoulian, Constitution Party and Jore is that because Jore ran as a third party candidate, he is getting the shaft from the Republicans, the Democrats and the Judicial Branch of Montana.

They are outraged. I find this odd. There have been many contested races where the "prevailing" party was awarded their costs and fees. There was no expression of outrage by the Missoulian, Jore and his supporters.

Remember the 1993 Mayor race in Darby between Moore and Higgins? 269 ballots were cast.

A lawsuit followed, contesting some of the ballots. Because Higgins was the "prevailing" party, the District Court awarded him his legal fees and costs, totaling $13,034. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's order in 1996.

Jore was a legislator in 1997. If the law was and is so outrageous, where was the Missoulian in 1996 with multiple opinions on the injustice of it all?

Where was Jore, raving about the partisan, activist Supreme Court? And, given the opportunity, why did Jore not fix the law he now finds himself refusing to follow after he insisted the loser pay?

No elector or candidate should be punished for questioning the election process in good faith. No candidate should be punished because the law provides they must be a named defendant in order to move the process forward. The election laws need to be changed. But currently, it is the law, which was made by the Legislature. All the courts have done is enforce that law. If you don't like the law, then your beef is with the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch, not the Democrats, not Jeanne Windham.

In the meantime, all Montanans, including wanna-be legislators, have to follow the law. We certainly don't need or want people serving in the legislature that think laws are to be followed by everyone else but themselves.

Bernadine Lovell

St. Ignatius