Olney will not be on June 24 Watertown council primary ballot
State Supreme Court Judge James P. McClusky on Thursday denied Olney's request to put him back on the ballot.
Olney was ready to give oral arguments, but the judge ruled from the bench.
"This was decided before I got here today," Olney said.
He reiterated that he will run as a write-in candidate and has already started taking steps to get the word out to the public on how to vote for him.
He has put together a campaign card explaining what voters have to do vote for him. Olney plans to go door to door to pass them out before the June 24 primary.
He also plans to notify all the people who signed his ballots to tell them that they've "been disenfranchised," Olney said.
Olney, a first-term councilman, was in court Thursday after refiling a motion seeking to have Judge McClusky reverse a decision that his name not be on the ballot.
Seven other candidates are running in the June 24 primary. Four will go on to the November general election.
Olney, who acted as his own attorney in the court matter, requested that Judge McClusky reconsider a ruling that a legal challenge of an elections board determination that he did not have enough valid signatures on his campaign petitions was not filed in a timely manner.
Olney initially filed suit asking to have his petitions reviewed by the court after it was determined he lacked the required minimum number of signatures to be on the ballot.
While Judge McClusky did rule that Olney had enough signatures to be on the ballot, he subsequently dismissed Olney's complaint because it had not been served on the defendants in a timely manner.
Olney, who contended he followed the court's timeline when serving the papers, filed a motion to have the matter reconsidered. Judge McClusky declined the request, ruling that Olney did not abide by state Civil Practice Laws and Rules when filing his motion for reconsideration.
Olney subsequently refiled the motion, indicating that he had corrected any procedural error in his filings.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kaysville primary election cancelled following candidate withdrawal
KAYSVILLE, Utah () — Kaysville has cancelled their primary election, after a candidate withdrew. Kaysville City announced on Tuesday that they will no longer be holding a primary election for their two open City Council seats, but that residents will likely still receive ballots in the mail. They are asking residents not to mail their ballots back. Initially, five people had filed their candidacy for the two open council seats. Under Utah Code 20A-6-402, governments must conduct a primary election when the number of candidates is more than double the number of open seats. One candidate withdrew late last week, bringing the total number of candidates to 4 and meaning that Kaysville City no longer had to hold a primary election. Unfortunately, Kaysville had already sent out their ballots when the candidate withdrew from the election. Many residents will likely receive a ballot. However, no votes will be counted. Additionally, Kaysville City noted that returning or mailing in ballots, 'costs the city (and taxpayers) money in postage.' Latest headlines: Work requirements and term limits proposed for federal rent assistance Kaysville primary election cancelled following candidate withdrawal Second court blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order nationwide after Supreme Court ruling Black student dragged from his car, punched by Florida officers says he was scared and confused Hershey plans to raise chocolate prices: 'Reflects the reality of rising ingredient costs' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
12 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Judge says R.I. officials have immunity in First Amendment lawsuit
Travis, who was presiding over the meeting as council president pro-tempore, cut him off and said, 'You will be talking about city government or you'll be leaving.' Cote said he did plan to talk about the government, but Travis had an officer escort him out of the meeting. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up The ACLU filed the lawsuit, accusing Warwick City Council members of violating Cote's First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. Advertisement In an order Tuesday, Senior US District Court Judge William E. Smith agreed to dismiss the City Council members in their personal capacities but not their professional capacities, reducing the lawsuit to a case against the city. 'Travis's act indeed may have violated Cote's constitutional rights, may have evinced poor judgment, and may even have been done in service of an inappropriate motive or intent,' Smith wrote. Advertisement 'But legislative immunity 'is not forfeited simply because the activities, if unprotected, might violate a plaintiff's constitutional rights,' ' he wrote, citing a prior ruling. Ultimately, if Travis 'overstepped the boundary of sound judgment,' she should be held accountable not under federal law 'but at the ballot box,' Smith wrote, citing another ruling. In a footnote, the judge said, 'It appears that Travis was, in fact, called to account for her alleged actions.' He noted Travis decided to not seek reelection and in 2024 agreed to Smith said the US Supreme Court has held that local legislators are entitled to 'absolute immunity' for their legislative activities, so the key question in this case is whether Travis's decision to boot from the meeting Cote represented 'legitimate legislative activity.' 'Facing this difficult question, the court believes that both precedent and prudence favor the conclusion that Travis's action ... was within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,' Smith wrote. He cited a City Council rule that allows council president to 'preserve decorum and order.' On Wednesday, Cote criticized the judge's ruling and said it could have implications for the rest of Rhode Island. 'It's really bad news. This can be interpreted so broadly,' Cote said. 'If you get up in front of your town council or school committee meeting, and they don't like the content of what you are speaking about, they can remove you without ramifications. Your First Amendment rights are gone. I guess we are in Moscow.' Advertisement But Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, said the lawsuit will proceed against the city even though City Council members can't be held liable in an individual capacity. 'The suit remains quite alive and we will be pursuing the matter,' he said. 'They are not off the hook by any means.' Brown emphasized the significance of the litigation. 'The ability of members of the public to speak to their representatives on topics of public interest is crucial to a democratic form of government,' he said. 'Mr. Cote wanted to talk about something that clearly involved city business and something extremely important, so barring him from being able to talk about it undermined the whole point of the public comment period.' An attorney representing Warwick and City Council members, Marc DeSisto, declined to comment. Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
CBS News
15 hours ago
- CBS News
Ocean City, Maryland, votes against restrictions on short-term rentals
Voters in Ocean City, Maryland, rejected an ordinance that would have put restrictions on short-term rental properties. The ordinance failed during a special election Tuesday, with 800 votes for and 834 votes against the measure, according to the city government. The ordinance, passed by the mayor and city council in March, would have initially imposed a minimum five-night stay for homes rented in certain single-family neighborhoods or mobile home communities. These changes would have gone into effect for 2025 and 2026. By January 2027, the measure would have required a minimum 31-night stay for homes rented in those designated communities. The ordinance would have impacted Ocean City's R-1 single-family districts and MH mobile home district. Currently, there are five R-1 districts in the city, and one mobile home district. More than 4,000 homes would have been affected by the ordinance. After it was passed by city leaders last year, the rental ordinance received sharp criticism, especially from the Ocean City Maryland Property Rights group. The group launched a petition that led to the special election. In it, advocates claimed the changes to short-term rentals would threaten property rights and lessen Ocean City's appeal as a vacation destination. "A ban on short-term rentals in Ocean City won't just hurt hosts," the group said in their petition. "It will hurt Ocean City's economy, its appeal to family vacationers, and its community spirit." The petition encouraged residents to vote against the ordinance. WJZ has reached out to the mayor's office for comment.
