Doyle cleared of complaint
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Lake County Sheriff Jay Doyle has been cleared of a complaint filed with Montana’s Political Practices Commission that his 2010 campaign for sheriff violated Montana law.
An investigation conducted by Montana’s Political Practices Commission has concluded Doyle didn’t violate sections 13-35-214(2) or 13-35-215(1)(a) of Montana Code Annotated.
The investigation was held based on a complaint filed Sept. 20, 2010 against Doyle by St. Ignatius resident Ken Scott. Scott alleged that Doyle illegally influenced voters by publicly announcing his choice for undersheriff before the 2010 primary and general elections.
The statute Doyle was accused of violating prohibits candidates from promising to appoint another person… “in order to aid or promote the candidate's nomination or election, except that the candidate may publicly announce or define the candidate's choice or purpose in relation to an election in which the candidate may be called to take part if elected.”
According to the summary of facts and statement of findings signed by Commissioner David Gallik May 31, the commissioner’s office has previously addressed similar alleged violations of 13-35-214(2) concerning the “illegal influence of voters,” and found the language of the statute to be “cumbersome and ambiguous at best…”
The summary further specifies that because these violations of law are misdemeanor offenses, “a person must act either knowingly or purposely to violate these statues.”
It is further written in the report, “To establish that Doyle violated 13-35-215(1)(a), MCA, it would be necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Doyle, acting knowingly or purposely, intended to induce (Mike) Sargeant or (Karey) Reynolds to vote in his favor by offering them the undersheriff’s position if Doyle was elected. Doyle steadfastly maintains he publicly identified his choice for undersheriff to inform the voters who would be temporarily in charge if Doyle won the election, but Doyle was unable to perform his duties as sheriff. There is no evidence suggesting that Doyle’s undersheriff designees agreed to serve as Doyle’s undersheriff as an inducement to vote for Doyle. The evidence indicates the contrary….”
