On Friday, the hearing in the election-interference case against Commissioner Mika Milburn-Kee brought something to Bourbon County that we often don’t see in Bourbon County. The hearing had intelligent people disagreeing in a respectful way while working through a process that keeps moving forward toward a resolution. This progress wasn’t because the two sides agreed on the desired outcome — far from it — but the lawyers on both sides and the judge all agreed on the procedure and decorum needed to respectfully work through the legal process.
The background to the hearing is the Attorney General’s case against Milburn-Kee, charging her with entering a restricted voting area containing ballots and causing a disturbance rather than leaving when she was asked to move to the adjacent office. The case was scheduled for a jury trial starting July 6. The Attorney General’s office says it had told the defense there was enough evidence for an additional felony count as well, but left it off the charges in hopes that the defense would first propose a plea deal or diversion agreement.
The day before the hearing, according to the Attorney General, the defense had not proposed any agreement, so the state filed to add the felony charge of intimidation of voters based on the same evidence it had for the misdemeanor charges. The defense objected to the late change, and the judge had to weigh whether to allow the addition or deny it.
The process was beautiful to watch. If you’ve endured the middle-school theatrics of the Bourbon County Commission meetings, watching the polite presentation of these different points of view might have brought a tear of happiness to your eye. The judge asked both sides for their input before making his decision. He gently chided the state for a pattern of late additional charges in other cases, while recognizing that this wasn’t the doing of the particular lawyer on the call. The defense and the state went back and forth over whether the felony charge had been previously discussed — all of it respectful. There was no talking over each other, no cursing, and no absurd requests that leave everyone baffled.
The state made it clear that it had hoped to resolve the matter with a plea (a conviction) or a diversion (no conviction) that would let Milburn-Kee keep her seat. But it believed it had all the evidence needed to convict on the felony and felt it was important to include if the defense wanted to pursue the trial. So if the judge denied the addition of the felony, the state would ask to dismiss the case and refile. This wasn’t the state’s attorney threatening the judge or throwing a fit; she was simply laying out the logical course of action. After making sure neither side had anything else to add, the judge decided not to allow the addition of the felony for the trial scheduled next week, and then immediately worked with the lawyers to set a preliminary hearing for the case the state said it planned to file with all the charges. Once again, there was no huffing, no cursing, and no loudly sliding papers around in front of the mic. No one suggested moving the trial to the county appraiser’s office just to make it inconvenient. It was all the calm, rational, and even boring turning of the legal wheels — the polite back-and-forth of adversarial sides working together through the process that creates what we rely on as justice in our country.
It was a beautiful reminder of what it looks like when a government process is carried out by rational, educated people applying logic to respectfully work together, even when they are trying to achieve different ends — a reminder that stands in stark contrast to much of the irrational flailing we routinely see in the county commission.
Mark Shead
Note: FortScott.biz publishes opinion pieces with a variety of perspectives. If you would like to share your opinion, please send a letter to news@fortscott.biz.