Martin: I won't talk, considering my legal options

We're doing a program next week on the ongoing controversy over seating Andrew Martin, the Democrat elected to the Assembly last month despite being ruled ineligible to run by a judge.

Kelly Hurst, who lost to Martin, has agreed to come on "Ralston Reports." But Martin, in an email to my producer, Dana Gentry, had this to say:

"I disagreed with the filing of this last-minute political lawsuit--which has its facts wrong--and take issue with the judge's decision in what was a rushed and incomplete proceeding held on Election Day eve. I am still considering my legal options, and for that reason will not comment further on the case. That said, I am putting this matter behind me, focusing on policy issues important to the state, and looking forward to serving my constituents in Assembly District 9 in the upcoming 2013 legislative session."

Really? Considering his legal options? Why would he not appeal if he thinks the judge was wrong? So he'll just leave a court record out there -- unchallenged -- that he is not eligible to run in District 9?


I say again what I told subscribers to my newsletter:

If the Legislature has the sole authority to determine its members' qualifications -- that's in the Constitution -- couldn’t it say it has the authority to hold a hearing on Martin’s? Maybe Judge Rob Bare was wrong that Martin is ineligible; maybe there is more evidence to be presented. Maybe Martin is right.

Let's find out.