Printed Watertown City Council primary ballots do not include Olney's name
May 30—WATERTOWN — Ballots have been printed for the June 24 City Council primary and Councilman Cliff G. Olney's name is not on them.
The Jefferson County Board of Elections went ahead printing the ballots while Olney is continuing his efforts in court to secure a spot on the ballot as he runs for reelection.
Olney, a first-term councilman, has a court hearing next Friday after refiling a motion seeking to have a state Supreme Court judge reverse a decision that his name is not on the ballot.
If he's successful in court, the elections board can reprint them with his name on it before the primary, County Attorney John L. Sabik said.
If Judge McClusky denies his legal argument, Olney plans to run as a write-in candidate.
"I won't have a lot of time to let my supporters know how they can vote for me," he said.
Seven other candidates are running in the June 24 primary. Four will go on to the November election.
Olney, who is acting as his own attorney in the court matter, said Thursday night that he was surprised to learn that Judge McClusky did not place a restraining order on stopping the elections board from printing the ballots until after Friday's court hearing.
He's requesting 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 has corrected any procedural error in his filings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
26 minutes ago
A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in Trump's bid to erase his hush money conviction
NEW YORK -- President Donald Trump's quest to erase his criminal conviction heads to a federal appeals court Wednesday. It's one way he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned. A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments in Trump's long-running fight to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. The Republican is asking the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the federal appeals court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. The 2nd Circuit should 'determine once and for all that this unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former and current President of the United States belongs in federal court," Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing. The Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted Trump's case, wants it to stay in state court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If Trump loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, arguing that Trump's historic prosecution violated his constitutional rights and ran afoul of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided about a month after the hush money trial ended. The ruling reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. In a four-page ruling, Hellerstein wrote that nothing about the high court's ruling affected his prior conclusion that hush money payments at issue in Trump's case 'were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.' Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. Trump's former criminal defense lawyer Todd Blanche is now the deputy U.S. attorney general, the Justice Department's second-in-command. Another of his lawyers, Emil Bove, has a high-ranking Justice Department position. The trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Trump's requests to throw out the conviction on presidential immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Appearing by video at his sentencing, Trump called the case a 'political witch hunt,' 'a weaponization of government' and 'an embarrassment to New York.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court of Georgia overturned four rules from the State Election Board
AUGUSTA, Ga. (WJBF) – The Supreme Court of Georgia overturned four rules from the State Election Board. Those measures were approved just before the presidential elections last year. So, what does this mean for local voting? When the SEB passed seven new election rules, they faced a legal challenge. The Fulton County Superior Court ruled them unlawful. The Supreme Court has now ruled that four of the seven rules are invalid. 'The State Elections Board had passed some rules. There was a lawsuit. So, they adjoined the rules, and they appealed it, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision,' said Travis Doss, Executive Director for the Richmond County Board of Elections. The rules that are now invalid are the reasonable inquiry rule, the hand count rule, the drop box ID rule, and the examination rule. The only rule that was upheld out of the seven is video surveillance of absentee drop boxes outside of voting hours. The other two rules, regarding poll watchers and daily reporting, have been sent back to the trial court. 'Now, there were two rules that the Supreme Court said were fine. One has to do with video surveillance of droboxes, and another one had to do with posting results to the website. We've been posting results to the website already,' said Doss. Richmond County Board of Elections Director Travis Doss says this will not change anything for voters because the rules were never implemented. 'I'm currently president of the association of voter registration and election officials. And we had kind of fought against these rules. Only because they were too close to the election. So, the court did adjoin them so they couldn't be used,' said Doss. Doss says he is happy to finally have closure. 'The good thing about the decision for the Supreme Court. It kind of gives a definitive answer. We were sort of in limbo after the rules were passed in November after there was the lawsuit,' said Doss. The primary for the Public Service Commission is currently underway in Richmond County, with early voting taking place until this Friday and Election Day on Tuesday, June 17th. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Argentina's Top Court Bans Kirchner From Office for Life
By Updated on Save Takeaways NEW Leer en español Argentina's Supreme Court upheld former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's fraud conviction, ratifying her sentence to six years in prison as well as a lifelong ban on holding public office, according to the court ruling reviewed by Bloomberg.
