No Solution to Rick Jore Recount $$ Problem

Ballot Access News

The Montana legislature adjourned for the year without passing any bill to reform who pays, when a recount is held. In 2004, the official election returns showed that Constitution Party nominee Rick Jore had tied with the Democratic nominee for a seat in the State House of Representatives. Under Montana law, a tie meant that the Governor could appoint someone, and he appointed Jore. But Jore’s Democratic opponent asked for a recount. That meant a court got involved. The lower court upheld the tie vote, but the State Supreme Court reversed and said Jore had lost the election. Under the law, Jore then had to pay for his opponent’s lawyers. He was billed $18,000, even though he had never sued anyone. SB 117, to place the burden of a recount on the government, did not pass this year. Now part of Jore’s legislative salary has been garnished, although most of the bill remains unpaid. Jore has refused contributions from his friends and supporters to help pay the bill, and he won’t cooperate in paying off the remainder, because he feels the bill is unjust.

19 Responses to “No Solution to Rick Jore Recount $$ Problem”

  1. Mike Indiana Says:

    While I have, some previous knowledge of the case, it had been my understanding that the case had been resolved. (that probably was the intro. of SB 117) I would be very curious to know of other examples of where candidates were stuck with legal fee resulting from recounts or ballot-access challanges, The catch being that they have to be (Reps. or Dems). there probably were some challenges against the Reps. (around the Civil War) but I would be willing to place a hefty sum of money on the fact that there aren’t that many. If anyone can think of an example post it. (reminder this excludes third party/independent candidates everyone on this site already knows the system is stacked against them.

  2. rj Says:

    If nothing else, I always figured this helped Jore get elected just through sympathy, where voters most agree that he was unfairly getting penalized for something he did not do.

  3. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Hmm… well, I agree that the idea he should have to pay for the recount personally was just plain stupid. However, if he does have plans for seeking higher office at some point, it would be wise to get this paid for and done with. Organize a protest… get friends and supporters to hold their noses with donating money into a big bucket or something. But get it taken care of so he can consider running for State or Federal office in a few years without this dogging him the whole time.

  4. Chris Campbell Says:

    Sounds to me like it is a kcik in the teeth-”take that for daring to run as Other than RNC/DNC”

    I remember him telling me that he did not even approve of some of 2004 legal movements, none the less his name got tagged onto legal procedings and hence, his name on any legal finees/fees.

  5. Gary Odom Says:

    The saddest thing is that due to his previous stints in the legislature, Rick will be “termed out” after this term due to Montana’s term limits law.

    Like Bill Shearer, I’m beginning to wonder if my previous support for term limits for legislative offices was misplaced-not just because of it cutting off Rick Jore’s tenure, but just generally. Oh well, there are many more fish to fry besides re-visiting the term limits issue.

  6. matt Says:

    Hopefully Jore will seek higher office after he’s termed out. If certain scenarios play out, Ithink he might be able to win a three way state level race.

  7. Trent Hill Says:

    I certainly hope he will seek higher office. Surely it wouldn’t be TOO difficult to simply run for the Senate District that his current House District is part of,right?
    One thing better than an elected State Representative, is an elected State Senator. Hell, he could even ask a fellow CPer to run in his House seat. Surely we could keep it that way…

    I didn’t know about the term limit thing…I certainly hope Jore will continue to play the role of standard bearer.

  8. Trent Hill Says:

    Oh,by the way.

    To those accusing Alan Keyes of being anti-catholic.

    He sits on the Board of Directors for the Catholic League

  9. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Oh wow, I didn’t realize he was going to be term limited. Are you sure that applies even if the terms are broken up? I know here in Florida we have people that bounce back and forth between the Jacksonville City Council and the State Legislature because the term limits are 8 consecutive years. Some have done the cycle 2-3 times.

  10. Trent Hill Says:

    I thought it was consecutive too, maybe the info is wrong?

  11. RWR Says:

    “Surely it wouldn’t be TOO difficult to simply run for the Senate District that his current House District is part of,right?”

    I don’t think it would be difficult at all; his senate district comprises only two house districts. He proved he can win one of those districts by a 10% margin against an incumbent, and the other district voted for the Republican candidate by a 20% margin last time, so they’re definitely conservative enough. Similarly, that senate district elected their Republican senator by a 20% margin in 2004, and he is up for re-election in 2008. However, the last CPer to run for that senate seat only took slightly more than 5% of the vote. With all the praise Rick got for his fairness and honesty - even from the most liberal, most mudslinging Democrats - I think people throughout the region will be a little more open to putting a CPer in the Senate.

    Montana’s term limits are a maximum of 8 years in a 16 year period for state legislators, so he cannot run for re-election until 2010.

  12. John Chance Says:

    Keyes is a Catholic, the the League is sadly GOP bought territory.

    Keyes stated he would leave the GOP (how many times have we heard that one) if the GOP nominates an openly pro-choicer. Guess he missed the many comments by Bush stating he supports exceptions and that he would not touch Roe.

    6 yrs of little to no action from the good “Christian” GOP President and Congress should be a glaring sign.

    Then, some people are more loyal to Party then Principle. I would, if I were on CP Committee, not waste a lot of time with Buchanan or Keyes. They can lead, follow and move out of the way.

    Sorry, but I tire of cool aid drinkers and do nothings. I get tired of those of influence that sell out and do not look at works, but just pretty words (sums of Protestants much to often as well).

    Chec out the Remnant Newspaper-they complain about any deviation, no matter how slight, but then fawn over Buchanan.

    Doubt they would give me the time of day…oh thats right, they have not and ignore my past letters in support of CP.

  13. Kurtis Oliverson Says:

    RWR, you’re right, but the CPer who got the 5% in that senate race had a serious car accident and baby birth (same day), whereby he had to stay home and take care of his injured wife and child in the last weeks leading up to the election. Perhaps the percentages would have been higher if he had been able to continue campaigning during those critical weeks, but then again, perhaps not. Only heaven knows. ;^)

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    “Keyes is a Catholic, the the League is sadly GOP bought territory.

    Keyes stated he would leave the GOP (how many times have we heard that one) if the GOP nominates an openly pro-choicer. Guess he missed the many comments by Bush stating he supports exceptions and that he would not touch Roe.”

    Keyes is a member of the Catholic league, and your right—it is GOP territory.
    Something tells me Keyes is going to bolt though.
    And if he could, Michael Novak also sits on that same Board of Directors, and is a good friend of his. Maybe he’d give the CP some coverage?

    As for the Senate District, that guy only got 5%, but Rick Jore has name recognition, experience, money, and already got elected by half the district.

  15. Kurtis Oliverson Says:

    Trent, you’re right about Rick having name recognition, experience, and already being elected by half of the district, but the money part isn’t quite accurate.

    He had to take a bank note out on his Caterpillar to pay part of his own legal fees from the Democrats’ lawsuit. Thankfully, a lot of good people from the local community, from the Republican party, from CP National, and from the now TAV group, helped him get his bulldozer out of hock.

    Hey, maybe it IS possible for people with differing opinions to be united in a cause! :^)

  16. Trent Hill Says:

    What I meant was,

    He put more money into his campaign than alot of CP candidates can. Now,wether that is because he is wealthy,or more prone to take big risks, I dont know.

    So…the term limit thing applies to the entire legislature? He can’t run for State Senate next time?

  17. RWR Says:


    No, I’m reasonably certain that people can bounce from one position to another for as long as they desire, just so it isn’t the same position for more than 8 years. I see where the confusion may have started - I said term limits for state legislators which is true, but the limits are for representatives and senators separately.

  18. Kurtis Oliverson Says:

    Ah, I see what you mean, Trent.

    The Republican currently holding that senate seat ran for it after having served in the house, though I don’t recall whether it was because he was term-limited out.

  19. Kurtis Oliverson Says:

    Oh, P.S., “wether that is because he is wealthy,or more prone to take big risks, I dont know”:

    It is because of neither. It looks like he spent more on his campaign because more people donated to his campaign than to the other Montana candidates:

    This makes sense, because of (1) his national recognition from the previous year’s abuse by his opponent and the Montana supreme court and (2) his principled refusal of donations from good people wanting to help him when the court ordered that he pay his opponents’ legal bills.

Leave a Reply