LakeCumberlandBoaters.com

The Court of Appeals ruled this morning, Friday, July 9, 2010, in favor of the drys in the wet-dry election in the Lake and Jamestown precincts of Russell County, according to information received from the office of Russell County Circuit Court Clerk Tony Kerr, today.

Alcoholic beverages will not be sold in Russell County as a result of the November 24, 2009, election which a three-judge Kentucky Court of Appeals Panel has invalidated.

The ruling rendered today upheld the ruling against the wet forces by Judge Julia H. Adams, a special judge in the case, who invalidated the elections held on November 24, 2009, because the KRS statute under which the election was held did not authorize local option elections by precinct, and also because the question put to the voters did not substantially comply with the specific language in the statute.

The case was heard before Judge Glenn E. Acree, Judge Christopher Shea Nickell, and Judge Janet Stumbo.

Robert Bertram, Jamestown, KY, was attorney for Greg Shaw local businessman, the appellant.

A.C. Donahue, Somerset, KY, was attorney for the winning drys, Tony Salyer local businessman, Thomas Skaggs retired local businessman, Lisha Popplewell RC county court clerk, Larry Bennett RC sheriff, Victor Hill, and Daryl Robertson rural postal carrier.

http://www.columbiamagazine.com/index.php?sid=37942

*a response posted to story:

Saddened by ruling on Russell Co. wet-dry election

About: Court panel rules for drys in Russell Co KY wetdry election

To ColumbiaMagazine.com:

This is a real sad day for the residents of Russell County. It is a step back into the dark ages. So now all the residents who drink in hiding will still have to do that. All you out there know you drink and hide but are afraid to let anyone know it because someone might point a finger at you.

s/Wayne A.

I just don't understand how judges can overrule the local citizens vote on something that is otherwise legal.

People who want to get this passed are going to have to make sure they dot the i's and cross the t's. If they want it bad enough, it will happen. Otherwise it will keep getting tossed. Makes no difference if we think the law is antiquated or not. If you want it changed, do what ya need to do.

E_HILLMAN wrote:I just don't understand how judges can overrule the local citizens vote on something that is otherwise legal.

I don't think they are overriding the vote, they are just saying that all the proper things weren't done to make the vote valid.
Sore losers hiding behind technicalities.

That was my take, imaposer. The fors are going to have to belly up to the bar and do the right things if they want it passed. Not saying the law is right but it is the law and needs to be dealt with legally. I think people get over anxious and try to cut corners in their efforts. Gotta work the system.

Must be a Dem, and related to Obama!

E_HILLMAN wrote:I just don't understand how judges can overrule the local citizens vote on something that is otherwise legal.