*1 I great with reluctance that follow it’s So P.3d 38 it, your history. have a because of You BRADBURY, Petitioner, John H. violence, history history drugs of long alcohol. You California. and absconded COUNCIL, IDAHO JUDICIAL permission. You were without Respondent. gang history, being a involved in have You No. 36175. gang. a Idaho, a aggravated battery, is an crime of This Boise, July 2009 Term. violence, cut; you people two were and drug past____ dealer in the were Sept. 2009. matters that I look at here is this
Other violence, history including inflict
prior corporal injury upon spouse.
[sic] prior burglary.
There’s you positive tested for meth —I know
You put your someone it in drink —back
said absconding You You California. through halfway been
have house. is further district
This evidence halfway pro- was aware that house
court through
gram California would not be suffi- protect public provide
cient to
Sanchez’s rehabilitation. Based San- history background prob- and
chez’s having
lems the court viewed him to be incarceration,
the alternatives to court acting within of its dis- the boundaries legal applicable and within the stan-
cretion probation. when it
dards revoked Sanchez’s
Therefore, we affirm the court’s or- district revoking probation
der Sanchez’s and rein-
stating original sentence.
III. CONCLUSION affirm the
We district court’s order revok- probation reinstating Sanchez’s
original sentence because the court acted
within boundaries of its discretion. JONES, JONES,
Justices J. W. HORTON TROUT, J., Pro Tern concur.
actually resides incurred pay the costs independent our re- proceeding. Based record, the Court the facts view of compliance is not finds residency and orders that requirement such comply with the law. he take action I. SETTING BACKGROUND elected in 2002 for district Petitioner was *4 resident chambers in Ida- judge position with January office in County. He took requires that 1-809 dis- Idaho Code section place desig- judges actually reside at the trict chambers. On De- nated as their resident 2002, 20, purchased a Petitioner cember County, and on Grangeville, Idaho house 16, 2003, changed regis- voter he his October County. tration to Idaho 2, 2006, May the Council notified Peti- On conducting inquiry an into that it tioner was actually residing in Idaho whether he was responded by letter on County. Petitioner 4, 2006, fully May stating that he owned a Grangeville, that he had furnished home home, exemption on that homeowner’s registered to vote and did vote that he was County. that he had a Idaho He also stated fully home in Lewiston and that furnished stayed depended upon the home at which he By April letter dated where his work was. 17, 2007, informed Petitioner the Council that, response, upon his based in its closing the file. The Council noted had not subsequent findings that Petitioner spent prac- “that he informed the Council McNichols, P.A., Clements, Brown & Lew- or, nights Grangeville, tically none of his Offices, PLLC, iston; Law Runft & Steele (6) spent he had prior that in the six months Shurtliff, Boise; Boise; peti- Karl for and M. (10) evenings Grangeville.” fewer than ten argued. E. tioner. Michael McNichols September the Council sent On Firm, Hailey, respon- Law The Roark stating it a letter had received Petitioner argued. R. Keith Roark dent. re-opening and was additional information inquiry into whether he was JONES, J. Justice. 31, County. residing in Idaho On October (Peti- Hamlin, the Executive Di- Bradbury Robert G. Judge John H. District Council, tioner) interviewed Petitioner rector of the the Court to review determina- asks (Council) regarding the issue of whether he Council tion of the Idaho Judicial County. That interview resided Idaho does not reside” he by a court recorded and transcribed County Code sections was interview, During that Petitioner reporter. The Council recommended 1-803 and 1-809. stated, duty my is to do “And Constitutional Bradbury suspended from Judge my job, trumps I think it whatever the he judge until such time serving as a district
m statutory obligation might County Clerk, be.” He contin- Deputy and Hamlin tes- ued, my job. I “And want to do And I want tified. Petitioner only stays testified that he both, comply the law. But I can’t do overnight in Grangeville when he has a trial asked, as much as I want to.” When “So do spends there and absent a trial he less than you you spend your most time Lewi- night per one Grangeville.1 — week in He tes- answered, “Yeah, ston?” Petitioner I do.” during spent tified that he had several up by asking, many Hamlin followed “How nights in Grangeville because his workload that, days rephrase many me how eve- —let there had increased. acknowledged He also nings you spend in Grangeville?” week do statements, prior my “And Constitutional answered, “Practically none.” He duty my job, is to do and I think trumps it got personal said most of his mail in statutory obligation might whatever the registered Lewiston and had vehicles my job, ... and I want to do I and want to spent Nez Perce He told Hamlin he law, comply with the but I can’t do both as most of his weekends at his ranch in Clear- much Ias want to.” building water where he is a house. At the conclusion of hearing, stated, Coun- you “I can He also tell that I would findings fact, cil written issued conclusions Grangeville my live if I could do work and *5 law, and recommendations. It Grangeville.” live in concluded actually that Petitioner did not reside Ida- 22,2008, January On the Council sent Peti- County in violation of Idaho Code sections stating appear tioner a letter that it did not 1-809, 1-803 and and that his failure to do so actually that he resided in Idaho 1(A) was a willful violation of Canons and The letter noted Petitioner’s contention that 2(A) pursuant to Idaho Code section 1-2103. job efficiently not he could do his if he lived findings It made no regarding Counts Two Grangeville, if but stated that the statute regarding and Four travel It rec- vouchers. requires actually that he reside Idaho ommended that immediately Petitioner be County he must do so. The Council conclud- suspended begins actually until he residing in by stating ed that unless he could show County, Idaho that if he does move to Idaho days actually within fourteen that he resided monthly to submit County, proceed Idaho the Council would certifying actually affidavits where he re- charges. with formal Petitioner did not at- sides, pay and that he so, costs of counsel 22, 2008, tempt July to do and on 27, 2009, hired the Council. On March proceedings. Council commenced formal petition filed verified in this proceedings The notice of formal alleged seeking Court review of the Council’s deter- alleged four counts: Counts One and Three mination. 1(A) 2(A) violations of Canons Code of Judicial failing Conduct for to actual-
ly County, reside in Idaho and Counts Two II. PROCEDURES AND STANDARD alleged and Four violations of the same can- OF REVIEW regarding expense ons travel vouchers. The evidentiary hearing Council held an on De- The Idaho Court holds 17, 2008, Petitioner, cember original jurisdiction at which over claims of fact, questioned you Q. 1. When about the amount of time he In told that in the Mr. Hamlin six County, Bradbury interview, resides in Idaho testi- preceding months that is the six fied October, 2007, as follows: prior you months to the 31st of spent evenings Grangeville. had less than ten matter, Q. practical you spend- But as a are night per Grangeville than less one week in A. I don’t know if that's what I said or not. I unless there’s trial? say say wouldn’t that I didn't It’s consistent it. A. That’s true. my experience. deny I don’t that. Which, Q. again, night per is less than one you spend you Q. practically And Grangeville, none of week in Idaho? nights County], night [in there Idaho up A. It's less than one a week until this year year. year night spent A. Not where I’ve had at one This I’ve several least week two, nights and sometimes because I’ve had more trials. there because I've had more cases there. The workload has increased. 112 sought, among other 2; V, § individual Justices Art. Ida Idaho Const.
misconduct. judge vacate the 288, the federal Becker, things, to have 122 Idaho Council ho Judicial judge de- (1992). The federal July argument. 290, The 294-95 292-93, 834 P.2d proceed- and it argument clined to vacate charged with inves Council Judicial in the to the claims Central § 1-2103. ed as scheduled. Code tigating such claims. allegations that Chief Jus- were federal suit the means which “provides 1-2103 Section Eismann, of the Idaho Ju- ju as Chairman investigations tice initiate the Council Council, participated in Council had dicial recommendations and make conduct dicial and, to this matter removal, pertaining disability proceedings discipline, Court objectively. therefore, act Peti- Becker, could not 122 Idaho at judges.” retirement having claim that the no tioner has admitted Although the Council 293, at 295. P.2d against biased Chief Justice was investigations and make may initiate such recommendations, him. has the ulti “this Court responsibility to decide authority and mate mo- Petitioner filed a August On in each case based on be done
what should Court, seeking disqualify tion with this presented to weighing of the evidence our August On Chief Justice Eismann. evidence the additional the Council based Eismann filed recusal Chief Justice Id. This Court does permits.” federal upon the claims in the lawsuit. made findings or conclusions review the by him in an affidavit filed Chief Justice cited they sup if are to determine showing that he had not the federal lawsuit It and the law. ported by the evidence participated proceedings in the before findings from and conclusions makes its own Petitioner, relating to that he had Council doing in the record. Id. When the evidence hospital undergoing chemothera- in the been *6 convincing so, and applies a clear this Court at the time the Council’s py lymphoma for proof. of Id. standard conducted, had not hearing and that he was findings and recom- the discussed Council’s DISQUALIFY III. MOTIONS TO of the Coun- with other members mendations cil. turning present to the issues Before consider the petition, the Court will ed the disquali timing of the motions to The 21, August by Petitioner on
motions filed remaining pre fy three of the four Justices 2009, Roger seeking disqualify to Justices S. troubling. siding on the case is somewhat Burdick, E. It and Warren Jones. Jim Jones July fully argued on and The case was seeks to dis appear that Petitioner does not Although the Idaho submitted for decision. Wayne Tern L. Kidwell. qualify Pro Justice apply Procedure do not Rules of Civil support of the motions The briefs filed 40(d), pertaining proceedings, Rule appellate are biased the three Justices contend judges, disqualification of trial court to sup motions are not impartial. disquali party seeks to instructive. Where background is by Some ported affidavits. cause, the motion fy judge a trial without place motions necessary in order to the timely contested matters must be filed before context. for consideration. See Idaho presented are 40(d)(1)(B). disquali A R. P. motion at the behest Civ. After two continuances —one judge a trial for cause request of fication of and the other at the of Petitioner accompanied any must be made at time but matter was scheduled for the Council—this distinctly 17, “stating July with an affidavit July argument on On oral disqualification grounds upon is based which filed suit the United support of the upon relied of Ida- and the facts Court for the District States District 40(d)(2)(B). P. Peti Idaho R. Civ. sitting then motion.” against each of the Justices by unaccompanied affi motions were Daniel T. Eis- tioner’s case—Chief Justice on this Burdick, why the three Justices spelling davits out mann, Roger Jim Jones Justices lack of disqualified for bias or Jones, should be Pro Tern Justice Warren are more in the suit, impartiality, so the motions Petition- Wayne In his federal Kidwell. seeking disqualify without of motions variety against claims form of er asserted
H3 party pears ground to file such a cause. Should a wish to be the which Petitioner disqualification. call the attention of a relies his motions for motion order to potential regarding par- concern Justice to a argument essentially Petitioner’s ease, ticipation particular on a the same that Chief knowledge Justice Eismann had of timely filed in a manner before should be evidentiary facts outside of the by record litigant argument, not after the has evaluated Council, position virtue on the that the particu- questions asked tenor Petitioner, against Chief Justice biased was argument. It would lar Justice at the likely and that the bias is to have infected the dangerous precedent litigant to allow a impartiality of three of the other four Jus questioning observe of the Justices deliberating tices on the ease. Petitioner has and, fact, argument oral after the seek to absolutely cited no support facts would disqualify appear those Justices who to have the contention that the target three Justices aspects litigant’s reservations about of the ed disqualification the motions for hold case. any animus toward any Petitioner or that three of four remaining Justices some Furthermore, nothing there is stated in knowledge pertinent how obtained facts why indicating Petitioner’s motions an earlier not contained in the record. It should be suggestion of recusal could not have been opinion noted that pri addresses two ap- made. From the commencement of this mary questions. question The first is the peal, it was known to Petitioner that Idaho interpretation reside,” of the words provides Code section 1-2101 that the Chief pure question which is a ques of law. This Justice of Court is to any tion is not influenced manner Council, serve as member of the as well as case, they facts of the whether are contained chairman, its and that Chief Justice Eismann in the record or elsewhere. The second fulfilling capacity appeal when the question is a factual one—whether Petitioner identity was filed. The of the other Justices county resides in designated by preside who would over the matter was also Legislature. The three Justices who are known and it was known that all four would subject disqualification motions participate proceedings in all and delibera- knowledge have no pertaining of facts If gave tions. of those facts rise to residency, except Petitioner’s actual as con *7 part, they concern on Petitioner’s should tained in apparent the record. As will be on, early have been made known at least reading opinion, from the of this almost all of prior argument. Nothing to the in Petition- pertinent the facts relevant to this factual supporting any er’s motions or briefs show determination are based on statements made recently discovered facts that would cast Hamlin, testimony Petitioner to given by upon ability doubt of the three chal- hearing, Petitioner at the Council or docu lenged perform Justices to their duties in an signed by ments spe Petitioner. The Court impartial unbiased and manner. cifically parties advised the in several orders prior argument issued that the case would Regardless of whether the motions were only be upon decided facts contained timely, grounds no exist for of the three record and that precisely is what the Court Justices to recuse themselves under either has done. the Code of Judicial Conduct or Idaho law. The Code of provides Judicial Conduct necessary judicial Whether it is for a judge disqualify “A shall himself or herself in disqualify given officer to himself case is proceeding judge’s impartiality where the judicial left to the sound discretion of the might reasonably questioned, including be State, officer himself. 112 Sivak v. (1986). but not limited to ... 197, instances where 206, 192, 731 P.2d 201 A state judge personal prejudice has a bias or con- ment of former U.S. Court Chief cerning party party’s lawyer, or a or has Rehnquist Justice William is instructive as to personal knowledge disputed evidentiary appellate judge might how an make a recusal might reasonably judge’s facts that affect the decision. See Corp. v. United Microsoft States, impartiality 25, proceedings.” ap- 1301, This 530 U.S. 121 147 S.Ct. 114 against each and serting claims (2000). There, individual the Chief Jus- 1048
L.Ed.2d every one of the four. he should re- considering whether tice was partner in a 28 forth the binding the Idaho Code eral statute of federal appeal. Chief U.S.C. similar cuse himself ed: quist’s statement Liteky himself matters impartiality rounding made tioned.” Section declaration of bias or (1994). observer who is 114 S.Ct. U.S.C. § purpose and from the on this legal criteria v. United 455. Chief judicial officers. 455(a) under § This facts and 1147 As this Court in an firm 455, prejudice but its that a Justice any proceeding Justice might inquiry Court, [1154] of Judicial representing perspective § contains a federal appeal where its States, instructive because 455(a) informed of all the sur- language in Canon 3 of circumstances. Justice interpretation are not for the reasonably Rehnquist considered 127 Chief “is not the the more 510 U.S. Although the fed- an L.Ed.2d 474 [486] has statute Conduct “shall Rehnquist stat- of a reasonable disqualification Justice objective in which his his son was a appearance.” stated, party disqualify 540, general and 28 reality Rehn- in the of the ques- what one, 548, sets where the recused three-fourths of motions themselves. yield to considered den of against all members of court declined appearing before other “Ordinarily, a member or “rule of a number of trial court 411 P.2d 1149. The Court dealing with the an absence of ordinary Higer (1946), at 413-14.” Id. To engaged 692, matter would Even had Petitioner had filed a showing bias or necessity.” itself. necessity. 67 Idaho at to recuse themselves situation.” whether recusal was appellant 619 where disqualification, Hansen, However, P.2d 1145 matter, disqualification must In Eismann v. this court continued: “As legal disqualification results in According Id. at 67 Idaho separate legal action panel voluntarily machinery capable judges. The Justices this is the case before action with a lack of grant (1980), members of this Court, 696, even carried his bur need regard based on the 45, far from an impartiality, 619 P.2d Miller, 101 appropriate Petitioner’s if recognized 50-51, as well as disqualify not have they 170 P.2d Court, to an- Court party had at merit, 147 L.Ed.2d at place the decision of this Court Id. at S.Ct. would Justice, pro justices, would According to the Chief in the hands of five tern case, judge’s impartiality can require reargument whether a of the would decision made in “reasonably questioned” likely produce is to be the same result because the existed, they and not as light the facts as of this case will be made determination reported. Apply- Id. and be they strictly were surmised or on the facts the record situation, interpretation applica- the Chief this standard to based himself, concluding law declined to recuse law. Neither the facts nor the would Justice ble *8 give not participation change in the case did officers. that his with new partiality. Id. appearance an rise to IV. DISCOVERY ISSUES case here. Petitioner has
Nor is such the contends that the Council ob- Petitioner present facts that a reasonable failed to discovery wrongfully respond failed to to his determining that in server could consider (a) identity sought: of the merely requests. He Petitioner appropriate. recusal prompted the Council investi person(s) had who Justice Eismann speculates that Chief (b) record, re the additional information gations; knowledge outside of of facts it to re by prompted in sworn ceived Council denied which the Chief Justice (c) 2007; the inter investigation in affidavit, open the those facts were somehow preliminary inves report of the Council’s nal imparted of the four other Justices to three (d) complaints made to the why tigation; all sitting on his case. He fails to disclose (e) Petitioner; all documents against exposed not to the Council the fourth Justice was Council and reviewed interesting generated to note It is same information. (f) complaints; response to those suing all four of the remain- that Petitioner is action, meetings in which all Council as- minutes of in his federal court ing Justices appears. Although The Council re- Petitioner’s name accusations made.” he does not requested provide expressly information right, fused state the source of this basic ground pursu- that it confidential on the was referring we assume that to the Rule 24. Petitioner renewed his ant to its right Sixth Amendment to confront one’s ac- discovery request for on a number of occa- applies cusers. That Amendment to criminal this sions before Court. prosecutions, prose- and this is not a criminal cution. confidentiality need not address the We discovery sought it issue because is clear the applicable if it Even were and even if there residency
was not and is not relevant to the “accuser,” were an it give would not Petition- 22(b) upon issue which this case turns. Rule right identity any er the to the such adopts of the Rules of Idaho Judicial Council person. person No such testified discovery rules of the Idaho Rules of hearing and no information from an informer Procedure, including Civil Rule Rule was contained the record before the Court. 26(b)(1) discovery of those rules limits Petitioner, hearing The witnesses at the were matter, “any privileged, which is relevant Clerk, the Idaho and Hamlin. Peti- subject pending to the matter in the involved ample opportunity tioner had to confront discovery sought by ...” action Petition- present those witnesses. they He was when simply legal er relevant interpre- isn’t to the testified, them, questioned and he does tation of the words reside” nor to any way not contend that he wrongful- was regarding the factual determination loca- ly questioning. any person limited such If pre- tion of Petitioner’s actual residence. As provided played part information that out, viously pointed almost all of the factual investigation, person Council’s such was regarding evidence Petitioner’s residence not an “accuser” as that term is used provided this matter Petitioner. right connection with the Sixth Amendment “to against be confronted with the witnesses
Furthermore, Petitioner did conduct person him.” No such was a witness nor was discovery proceedings in the before the any person may information that such full opportunity Council he had to cross- provided have included the record. Our hearing. examine witnesses the Council If findings are based the evidence in the Petitioner believed that he had not been able record. present to obtain and additional relevant evi Council, option
dence to the he had the under request Idaho Code section 1-2103 to VI. ALLEGED PREJUDICE OF permit him to introduce additional THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL evidence for our consideration. Petitioner Petitioner contends the Council was and, therefore, request failed to make such a prejudiced against him. He contends that was, pursuant the Court’s review to the stat alleged prejudice is shown two facts. ute, proceedings confined to the record before the Council. First, the Council’s notice of formal proceedings alleged two counts of violations V. RIGHT TO CONFRONT ACCUSERS regarding of the Judicial Canons travel ex Petitioner contends he is en pense vouchers when the Council had not identity titled to person(s) know the previously given Petitioner notice of those prompted investigations who *9 be allegations. The Council did not make right cause he has a to confront his accusers. findings regarding or recommendations those though Even the Executive Director of the Therefore, counts. that conduct does not Council testified twice under oath in the prejudice. may indicate It have been differ hearing original Council that there was no ent had the Council found violations that complaint or verified with statement filed the clearly by unsupported were the facts and Council, request Petitioner continues to dis law. covery identity of the of his accuser. He asserts, Second, “Judge Bradbury right has a basic to Petitioner contends that the 7, 2008, identity Special know the of his accuser and the letter dated October from the that shows Petitioner contends that the term hired the Council Examiner posi- ambiguous. It is Petitioner’s disciplinary reside” pre-judged had the actually that he can reside several in- tion had counsel proceedings. Petitioner’s time. In his different locations the same willing be the would quired whether Council testimony the he indicated before Council response, In the the matter. to mediate Grangeville residing in even was Examiner wrote back: Special spent days per though he six if not seven suggestion that we passed your I have county. in another in another week house pending now disciplinary the case mediate During argument argued it on his oral Judge Bradbury to the Judicial against on only requires physical term behalf that the The Council has for their review. Council presence County, infrequently in Idaho as as that, your agree me if client authorized to every years. argued that once ten He also §§ 1-803 having violated I.C. admits to “actually” surplusage word mere and the actually residing in Idaho and 809 may why Legislature he has no idea that the (Count County during years past two “actually” modify the word “re- have used to I) immediately up full- agrees and to take side.” County, we will time residence in Idaho question Dean, mediate the of what sanction In Sweitzer we stated imposed drop be all other interpreting language should of a standard for charges. as follows: statute meaning interpreting the of the When Judge strongly The Council feels statute, language contained in a Bradbury’s obey refusal the relevant give legisla- Court’s task is effect to the statute, having even after been warned purpose. construing intent and In ture’s to do the Executive Director of the need statute, Supreme examine so, away be if it cannot mediated as had used, language reasonableness occurred. never proposed interpretations, policy argues para- the second behind the statutes. It is incumbent graph of the letter shows that the Council interpret in a man- this Court to a statute already not actu- had determined that he did it, nullify ner that will not and it is not to ally County. reside When that presumed legislature per- paragraph preced- is read in with the context act enacting superflu- formed an idle it ing paragraph, merely states that statute. The Court will not ous would not whether Petition- Council mediate way construe a statute in a which makes required to comply er was Idaho Code surplusage provisions mere included §§ Any 1-803 and mediation would 1-809. therein. to the if imposed be limited sanction Petition- 568, 571-72, 118 Idaho 798 P.2d 30-31 er admitted the violation. (1990) (citations omitted). addition, In “Stat- utory interpretation begins with the ‘literal THE THE VII. MEANING OF WORDS statute,’ words of the and those ‘words must “ACTUALLY RESIDE” usual, given plain, ordinary their meaning, and the be construed statute must provides Code section 1-803 ” as a whole.’ Cordova v. Bonneville resident chambers of one district Dist. No. 144 Idaho Joint Sch. judge in the Second District shall be Judicial omitted). (2007) (citations 774, 778 167 P.3d Idaho Code section 1-809 provides, judges “District shall re The word means “to dwell “reside” time; residence; place designated long side at as resident live have one’s (m at).’’ Dictio chambers.” Petitioner ran for and was elect New World Webster’s 1988). (3rd nary that was “Resi judge position College ed to the district Ed. “place chambers in where one establish resident dence” is defined *10 lives, County. a primary actually distinguished Idaho issue before as from domi us (8th actually Dictionary whether in Ida Law Ed. is resides cile.” Black’s 1335 2004). County. “actually” The word means “as
H7 fact; history really.” legislative pertinent actual Webster’s at Some is also matter of to 1967, 8, inquiry. Thus, Chapter our Prior to actually in to reside at his Title order 1, Code, Idaho divided the state into chambers, eleven judge required or her resident 1967, judicial Chapter districts. In 8 was county. In designated live in the to repealed provide and re-enacted to for the Care, Inc. v. Board Intermountain Health of seven districts the state now has. County, Commissioners Blaine we defined of Laws, legisla- 1967 Idaho Sess. ch. 51. The place “residence” as “the where one tion established the resident chambers for all home; person’s dwelling lives or has his judge positions district and enacted Idaho habitation; abode; place place an or of present § Code 1-809 in its form. The short is; dwelling house where one’s home reads, legislation pertinent title of the in 412, 414, 1051, P.2d house.” 109 Idaho 707 part, THE ‘‘PROVIDING FOR RESIDENT (1985) (quoting 1053 Perez v. Health & Social JUDGES; CHAMBERS OF DISTRICT Services, 334, 689, 91 N.M. 573 P.2d 692 REQUIRING A DISTRICT RE- JUDGE added)). (1977) (emphasis AT SIDE RESIDENT CHAMBERS.” For- “actually 1-901, The words reside” or derivatives mer Idaho Code section which was (1975 Laws, repealed 242), in in long legal thereof have been used Idaho’s 1975 Sess. ch. provided judge “may had that a district history. They appear in section 5 of the sit at anywhere chambers within his Idaho, district.” Territory of 12 Organic Act of the However, the new section 1-809 808, 117(1863), provided L. ch. which Stat. judges “actually district to reside” at their every male inhabitant” above “free white resident chambers. It is rather clear the twenty-one years an age of who was Legislature judges wanted district to live in Territory “actual resident” of the at the time county where their resident chambers passage of of the act was entitled to vote and part were located and to be a of that commu- Territory. Upon eligible to hold office nity. statehood, VI, 2 article section of the Idaho every provided right Virtually judge to vote to district Constitution who has been appointed or elected since 1967 twenty-one year old male citizens who had has under- requires stood that section 1-901 that him “actually territory” or resided the state or really county designated her to live in Const., VI, as § 2 six months. Idaho art. Indeed, 1962). strong (amended resident chambers. there is The words have also been evidence the record that Petitioner under- variety In written into a of statutes. order stood this to be the case when he ran for the aid, qualify scholarship to for certain stu County position. Idaho Petitioner testified “actually on-campus dents must reside” bought Grangeville, that he a house §§ facilities. Idaho Code 33-4302 and 33- exemption he took out a homestead on that majority 4032A. The of of an in members exemption house and still maintained the as operates only in surer that the State of Idaho hearing of the time of the Council on Decem- must reside” the state. I.C. 17, 2008, registered ber and that he to vote in 41-2835(4). 50-102, § Idaho Code section Petitioner would not have provides which for the manner which cities exemption registered taken a homestead incorporated, signatures restricts on clearly to vote unless he initiating petition qualified an electors who county understood was to be his territory pro are “actual residents” of the primary residence. posed incorporated. An earlier version interpreted by of this statute was judge “presumed A district 642, 648, Village Ramey, Ilo v. 18 Idaho Leavitt, 4, know the law.” State v. 121 Idaho (1910). 126, There, equated 112 P. 128 we 523, (1991); City 822 P.2d Lewiston the words “actual resident” with “inhabit Frary, 91 Idaho 420 P.2d person (1966). ant.” An “a “inhabitant” is who necessarily It follows that district permanently place Thus, in a comply dwells resides judges must also with the law. distinguished lodger from a transient or visi we must assume that Petitioner understood Webster’s, significance obtaining maintaining tor.” at 1163. *11 dwelling place of the voting property primary be the and of exemption a homeowner’s officer, Being with full owner. a law, would cer- knowledge of the Petitioner 63-602G(l) allows for section Idaho Code tainly applied for homeowner’s have person’s homestead as exemption of the County exemption on house unless the in Idaho Code section that term is defined clearly that it was to be his understood 63-701(2). dwelling, “the A homestead is primary dwelling place and that he was to .... owner-occupied by the claimant subsequent year. it such for each maintain dwelling place of the primary the used as Although certainly question his one could 63-701(2). § Idaho Code I.C. claimant.” subsequent compliance foregoing with the 63-602G(2)(a) specifies that the ex- section statutes, any, if pursuit, that a matter for only if the home- emption may granted (see by county officials Idaho Code section as the owner-occupied and used stead is 63-602G(5), county empowers which officials dwelling place of the owner. Sub- primary recovery of tax revenues lost to seek 2(c)(ii) certify requires the owner to section exemp- improperly claimed homeowner’s the homestead county assessor that to the tions) subject present the of our and not dwelling place.” Subsection “primary is his inquiry. 2(f) “primary that the definition states that in Idaho dwelling place” is the same as Petitioner understood that Idaho Unless 63-701(8). provi- The latter Code section the location of was to be and remain dwelling place is: says primary the sion residence, primary his he would not have dwelling place January 1 the claimant’s on registered to vote and continued to vote April year for which the or before 15 of the county. According Idaho Code sec- that primary dwelling claim is made. The tion 34-107: place single place is the where claimant (1) Residence,” voting purposes, shall true, permanent home has his fixed and principal primary place or home or be the establishment, principal and to which person. Principal primary of a or of abode absent he has whenever the individual is place of is that home or home or abode A returning. intention of claimant the place in which his habitation is fixed and to dwelling to which the must establish the person, which a whenever he is absent has primary dwelling claim relates returning present the intention of after a convincing or place clear and evidence therefrom, regard- departure or absence dwelling by establishing that the is where less of the duration of absence. January claimant on 1 or be- resided April and: fore (4) qualified A elector shall not be consid- (i) (6) during prior At least six months gained ered to have a residence year; or county city or of this state into which he (ii) majority of time the claimant The only, temporary purposes comes for with- dwelling if owned the owned making it home out the intention but (1) year; claimant less than one leaving with the intention of it when he has (iii) majority time after brought accomplished purpose dwelling if occupied claimant first him there. occupied by claimant for less than Indeed, registration signed by Peti- form (1) year. one tioner on states: October 63-701(6) defines “oc- Idaho Code section By sign- PENALTY OF LAW: UNDER meaning posses- “actual cupied” as use card, certify I am ing I a citizen only apply An owner need once for sion.” that I shall have of the United States and exemption, but must maintain homeowner’s county been a resident of Idaho and yearly § eligibility on a basis. I.C. 63- days the next election at for 30 before 602G(3). The current version of the home- ... which I vote exemption enacted 2006. The owner’s would not have did not use the It is obvious earlier versions the statute homestead, signed equally certificate and obvious require did false word but
H9
County
by
is a matter for consideration
was to be
this
other
he understood Idaho
that
particularly pertinent
Al-
and fixed habitation.
authorities and not
to
primary
his
home
that his subse-
though
present inquiry.
the evidence indicates
voting require-
compliance with the
quent
sum,
required pursuant
In
Petitioner is
to
ideal,
than
that is a matter for
ments is less
Idaho Code sections 1-803 and 1-809 to actu-
authorities.
other
ally
County.
reside in Idaho
That means he
that Peti-
further fact demonstrates
One
in
primary
must maintain his
residence
Ida-
required
actually
understood he was
tioner
County,
that he must be an
of
inhabitant
really
County.
in
Dur-
reside or
live
Idaho
County,
really
Idaho
and that he must
live
testimony
hearing,
ing
at the Council
he
County.
The evidence
the record
Legislature
acknowledged having asked the
actually
that
has not
indicates
he
been
resid-
to amend Idaho Code section 1-803 so he
ing
County
for
some time and this
If,
County.
could reside
Clearwater
change.
must
contended,
has
he can
re-
Petitioner
at the
in several different counties
same
side
VIII. CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY
time, there would be no need to obtain such a
during
pro
A
change in the law.
number of times
these
ceedings, commencing
with his interview
initially
it is clear that Petitioner
While
Hamlin,
living
Petitioner has contended that
he
to live in Idaho
understood
County
ability
interferes with his
County, the record reflects that he was not
carry
duty.
out his constitutional
He does
during
period preceding the
doing so
identify
provision
not
the constitutional
time he was interviewed
Hamlin.
It is
trump
statutory requirement
would
from
record when Petitioner
not clear
County.
argument
he reside in Idaho
The
using
pri-
began
his Lewiston house as his
displays
misunderstanding
a fundamental
mary residence. What is clear is that he was
pertinent
provisions.
constitutional
complying
require-
not
with the residence
of Idaho
sections 1-803 and 1-
ments
Code
judicial system
While Idaho’s
proceedings
809 when these
were initiated
separate
government,
depends
branch of
it
living
County.
because he was
Nez Perce
V,
upon
Legislature
funding.
Article
point
At some
claimed section 11 of the Idaho Constitution divides
County
principal
Nez Perce
as his
residence.
judicial
pro
the state into five
districts but
registered his vehi-
This occurred when he
may
legislature
vides that “the
reduce or
County.
cles Nez Perce
The record does
districts,
increase the number of
district
clearly
reflect when this occurred. Peti-
judges
attorneys.”
Legisla
and district
testified that as of December
tioner
purse
power
ture
use its
over the
registered in
his vehicles were
Nez Perce
judge
strings
particular
to fund a
district
49-401B(5)
pro-
Idaho Code section
position
particular
in a
locale. It has chosen
pertinent
part:
vides
1-
to do so
virtue of Idaho Code sections
Every
registered by
owner of a vehicle
worse,
803 and 1-809. For better or for
county
give
principal
assessor shall
res-
political
legis
is a
decision that is within the
idence or domicile address to the assessor
prerogative.
lative
Those who are familiar
proper county
that the
can be entered
so
political
populat
with the
situation in the less
registration.
Failure to do so
jockey
ed counties of Idaho are aware of the
purpose
For the
shall be unlawful....
goes
on
when
registration,
person
is an actual
vehicle
Legislature
notifies the
of the need for an
permanent
county resident of the
judge
particular
in a
district and
additional
principal
residence or
which
has his
might
cham
suggests where the same
principal
A
or
domicile.
residence
domi-
ability
certainly has the
bered. The Court
person’s workplace, va-
cile shall not be a
suggest
proposed location where the dis
cation,
part-time
residence.
needed,
Legisla
judge
trict
is most
but the
and the
entirely
might
one
recon-
ture takes the matter from there
It is not
clear how
but,
competition to
again,
counties often enter into fierce
cile this inconsistent certification
justice
county,
in their
rather
cial to the administration
judge housed
have the
dispute.
brings the
office into
adjoining county.
residents
than the
judge
having
live
strong
have a
interest
*13
Petitioner contends that a viola
community
the exact
in their
and
and work
of
cannot
tion of the Code
Judicial Conduct
political
that will occur is a
location where
discipline.
argues
He
that
be
basis for
by the Constitution
decision conferred
discipline
grounds for
are limited to a viola
Legislature’s
Legislature.
the
de-
While
1-2103. That
tion of Idaho Code section
judge position will
cision as to which district
justice
provides,
part,
that a
or
statute
may
where it will be located
be funded and
judge may
disciplined or removed “for
be
what is ideal from
always
coincide with
...
conduct
wilful misconduct
office
standpoint, it is not for the
an administrative
justice
prejudicial
to the administration of
such
guess
courts to second
or circumvent
judicial
brings
disrepute.”
that
office into
decisions.
adopted the Code of Judicial Con
This Court
judge
appointed to
Once a district
is
for ethical con
duct to establish standards
county, the Idaho Su
particular
live in a
by
judges. A
duct
Idaho
violation of
re
preme Court exercises its constitutional
in of
Code
constitute wilful misconduct
supervise
and
sponsibility to administer
prejudicial
the administra
fice or conduct
to
V, § 2
judge.
work of the district
Art.
justice
brings
tion of
office into
that,
provides
“The courts
Idaho Constitution
Becker,
293-94,
disrepute.
122 Idaho at
integrated judi
shall constitute a unified and
out, however,
point
P.2d at 295-96. We
system
supervi
cial
for administration and
petition
when a
has been filed in this Court
by
Supreme
sion
Court.” As we stated
determination,
to review the Council’s
this
Miller,
provision “places
this
Eismann
judge’s
Court decides whether the
conduct
obligation
power
to administer and
discipline.
grounds
constitutes
for
supervise
judicial system of
this state
While the Council determined
Peti-
squarely upon
of
court.”
the shoulders
tioner’s actions were
violation of the Code
ute is more utilizing objectively defined. Whether
than
meaning of the
or “clear
“common sense”
precluded.