A lot of good a ruling last week by the state political practices commissioner does now.

Commissioner Dennis Unsworth on Monday ruled in favor of Democratic state Sen. Jesse Laslovich, upholding his status as a legal resident of Anaconda despite the fact he lives and works in Helena.

The ruling stems from a July 2008 complaint filed by Laslovich’s Republican opponent, Dick Motta of Philipsburg, who lost to Laslovich by an almost 2-to-1 vote in November 2008 (5,853 to 2,391) for the Senate District 43 seat, which encompasses parts of Deer Lodge and Powell counties and all of Granite County. Motta sought to have Laslovich disqualified for running for re-election in the Senate.

Despite the obvious political persuasions that Montanans no doubt read into this decision, it’s not necessarily about whether or not Laslovich should legally be able to call Anaconda home. It’s more about a system that, if it takes 18 months to determine a simple ruling such as this, is broken by all standards.

There is no doubt voters in Laslovich’s district have confidence in him. They have handily elected him to office three times. He served in the House from 2001 to 2004 — a position he held before he even graduated from the University of Montana — and has been in the Senate since 2005. Jesse’s last name gains clout in that district, but so too should his track record. Laslovich, 28, has been one of the youngest, active legislators this state has known in some time.

He’s also a highly achieving young professional, having graduated from UM Law School in 2006 and now working as a temporary staff attorney for State Auditor Monica Lindeen.

Laslovich has repeatedly countered Motta’s assertions by claiming his position in Helena is temporary, and that he fully intends to return to Anaconda, where he calls home and is part-owner of his family’s construction business.

“Laslovich’s unequivocal and often-stated intent to return to Anaconda-Deer Lodge County when his temporary employment ends, coupled with his decision to reside at his parents’ ‘fixed’ residence in Anaconda, is consistent with the language in (state law) and the McCrone decision (by the previous political practices commissioner),” Unsworth wrote.

It’s hard to argue for or against intention. But it is easy to criticize how long this decision took to make and the fact that it undoubtedly raises red flags about the intent of the law to require legislators to reside in their districts prior to running for election.

Had this same ruling been made prior to the November elections there’s no telling if it would have changed the outcome. But it

doesn’t let the Office of Political Practices off the hook. Unsworth and his staff should have quickly ruled on the matter when it was filed in July 2008.

The ruling is utterly meaningless now, other than one thing: It’s going on two years now that Laslovich has lived and worked permanently in Helena. If Laslovich wants to earn District 43 votes in the future, the good senator better be true to his intentions.

Related

• IR editorial misses the substance