A new liquor-by-the-drink (LBTD) referendum will be held in Pigeon Forge.
On the first day of the election contest/trial in Sevier Chancery Court, a few preliminary motions were disposed of and then Chancellor Telford Forgety ordered a new referendum. Click here and here.
LBTD passed by a 100-vote margin in a November 6 referendum in Pigeon Forge. Shortly afterwards, however, it was alleged that the number of votes cast in the election exceeded the number of eligible voters by about 300 votes.
Concerned Citizens and Churches of Pigeon Forge filed suit against the Sevier County Election Commission to contest the referendum. CCCPF claimed that the approximately 300 "extra" votes cast in the referendum were "illegal" votes and made the results of the election "incurably uncertain."
Initially, the Election Commission referred to the 300 "extra" votes as "improper." Depositions were taken. Then on January 9th, the day before the trial, the Sevier County Election Commission held a meeting and unanimously instructed its lawyer to tell the Court that the Election Commission agrees that the results of the LBTD referendum are "incurably uncertain" which is the legal standard for overturning an election. Click here and here.
With the Defendant Election Commission admitting/stipulating to the Court on the day of trial that the results of the referendum were "incurably uncertain" as alleged by Plaintiff CCCPF, the Chancellor's ruling--barring some unanticipated or unforeseen development--was not in doubt.
The parties and the voters in Pigeon Forge will now gear up for another LBTD referendum.
Previous posts and links are here.
Showing posts with label election contest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election contest. Show all posts
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Monday, January 07, 2013
January 7, 2013 Chancellor Lets Pigeon Forge Pro-Liquor Group in on Election Contest
At a court hearing last week, Sevier Chancellor Telford Forgety ruled that the pro liquor-by-the-drink group "Forging Ahead" may intervene and participate in the election contest regarding the Pigeon Forge LBTD referendum held on November 6.
LBTD passed by 100 votes in the referendum, but it is alleged that around 300 "illegal" or "improper" votes were cast in the election. The anti-liquor group maintains that 300 "illegal" votes were cast and the pro-liquor group prefers to call the extra votes "improper."
Hopefully, both groups are concerned about that close to 300 illegal/improper votes were cast and counted in a referendum election that was decided by a mere 100 votes.
Election contests can be difficult for all parties. If Chancellor Forgety does not dismiss the case for lack of standing on the part of the Plaintiff Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge, this election contest will begin on Thursday, January 10, and will likely continue on January 11.
Click here and here.
LBTD passed by 100 votes in the referendum, but it is alleged that around 300 "illegal" or "improper" votes were cast in the election. The anti-liquor group maintains that 300 "illegal" votes were cast and the pro-liquor group prefers to call the extra votes "improper."
Hopefully, both groups are concerned about that close to 300 illegal/improper votes were cast and counted in a referendum election that was decided by a mere 100 votes.
Election contests can be difficult for all parties. If Chancellor Forgety does not dismiss the case for lack of standing on the part of the Plaintiff Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge, this election contest will begin on Thursday, January 10, and will likely continue on January 11.
Click here and here.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
January 3, 2013 Pigeon Forge Liquor-by-the-Drink Referendum
The Pigeon Forge LBTD referendum is in court.
Greg Johnson, an opinion columnist with the News-Sentinel who has written at length on the topic, thinks there should be a new referendum.
Click here for Johnson's article, and check out the reader's comments at the end of the article.
In depositions, the Election Administrator Renee Flynn and Election Commission Chair J.B. Matthews are watching their words. Their use of the word "illegal" in reference to votes cast by ineligible voters is being changed to the word "improper."
In an election that was decided in favor of LBTD by a 100-vote margin, close to 300 votes have been alleged to have been cast by ineligible voters while other eligible voters were denied the right to vote.
Hopefully, all the facts will come out during the January 10-11 trial.
Greg Johnson, an opinion columnist with the News-Sentinel who has written at length on the topic, thinks there should be a new referendum.
Click here for Johnson's article, and check out the reader's comments at the end of the article.
In depositions, the Election Administrator Renee Flynn and Election Commission Chair J.B. Matthews are watching their words. Their use of the word "illegal" in reference to votes cast by ineligible voters is being changed to the word "improper."
In an election that was decided in favor of LBTD by a 100-vote margin, close to 300 votes have been alleged to have been cast by ineligible voters while other eligible voters were denied the right to vote.
Hopefully, all the facts will come out during the January 10-11 trial.
Friday, December 28, 2012
December 28, 2012 "Forging Ahead" Wants in on Pigeon Forge LBTD Election Contest
Another player in the Pigeon Forge liquor-by-the-drink referendum wants in on the election contest.
LBTD passed by a 100-vote margin in a November 6 referendum. A lawsuit was subsequently filed alleging that 300+ ballots cast in the election were not from registered Pigeon Forge residents or property owner voters.
Forging Ahead, a group that raised money and campaigned to support passage of LBTD, has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit that was filed by Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge against the Sevier County Election Commission.
Forging Ahead is represented by former Knox County Law Director John Owings and wants to intervene in order to "protect its interests and assist the court in consideration of this matter...."
Owings wants his motion heard on January 4, six days before the scheduled start of the trial on January 10 before Chancellor Telford Forgety.
In yesterday's News-Sentinel, the attorney for the Sevier County Election Commission confirmed that most of what he called "extra" votes were cast at the Pigeon Forge City Hall precinct. Attorney Dennis Francis added that he expects that the final number of "extra" votes will be in the high 200s.
The News-Sentinel article is here.
The original complaint filed in Sevier County Chancery Court is here. Paragraphs 10-22 outline the bases of the allegation that approximately 303 improper votes were cast in a referendum that passed by a 100-vote margin.
LBTD passed by a 100-vote margin in a November 6 referendum. A lawsuit was subsequently filed alleging that 300+ ballots cast in the election were not from registered Pigeon Forge residents or property owner voters.
Forging Ahead, a group that raised money and campaigned to support passage of LBTD, has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit that was filed by Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge against the Sevier County Election Commission.
Forging Ahead is represented by former Knox County Law Director John Owings and wants to intervene in order to "protect its interests and assist the court in consideration of this matter...."
Owings wants his motion heard on January 4, six days before the scheduled start of the trial on January 10 before Chancellor Telford Forgety.
In yesterday's News-Sentinel, the attorney for the Sevier County Election Commission confirmed that most of what he called "extra" votes were cast at the Pigeon Forge City Hall precinct. Attorney Dennis Francis added that he expects that the final number of "extra" votes will be in the high 200s.
The News-Sentinel article is here.
The original complaint filed in Sevier County Chancery Court is here. Paragraphs 10-22 outline the bases of the allegation that approximately 303 improper votes were cast in a referendum that passed by a 100-vote margin.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
December 27, 2012 Poll Workers' Deposition Testimony in Pigeon Forge LBTD Election Contest
The Pigeon Forge liquor-by-the-drink referendum is the subject of an election contest in Sevier County Chancery Court. The trial is scheduled for January 10-11 in front of Chancellor Telford Forgety.
One of the allegations in the election contest is that 300+ more votes were counted and certified by the Sevier County Election Commission than were cast by actual registered Pigeon Forge voters. Therefore, the true election results are "incurably uncertain."
In the LBTD referendum, there were 1232 votes FOR and 1132 AGAINST. Since the referendum only passed with a 100-vote margin and the validity of more than 300 votes is in question, the election contest may decide whether the referendum stands or whether a new referendum must be held.
Deposition testimony of two Pigeon Forge poll workers indicates that non-Pigeon Forge voters (e.g. Sevier County voters who live outside Pigeon Forge and who are not Pigeon Forge property owners) were allowed to vote in the Pigeon Forge LBTD referendum.
Greg Johnson of the News-Sentinel discusses some of the testimony here.
Previous blog posts with links to N-S articles are here, here, and here.
One of the allegations in the election contest is that 300+ more votes were counted and certified by the Sevier County Election Commission than were cast by actual registered Pigeon Forge voters. Therefore, the true election results are "incurably uncertain."
In the LBTD referendum, there were 1232 votes FOR and 1132 AGAINST. Since the referendum only passed with a 100-vote margin and the validity of more than 300 votes is in question, the election contest may decide whether the referendum stands or whether a new referendum must be held.
Deposition testimony of two Pigeon Forge poll workers indicates that non-Pigeon Forge voters (e.g. Sevier County voters who live outside Pigeon Forge and who are not Pigeon Forge property owners) were allowed to vote in the Pigeon Forge LBTD referendum.
Greg Johnson of the News-Sentinel discusses some of the testimony here.
Previous blog posts with links to N-S articles are here, here, and here.
Friday, December 21, 2012
December 21, 2012 More on the Pigeon Forge Liquor-by-the-Drink Referendum and Election Contest
Update on the Pigeon Forge Liquor-by-the-Drink (LBTD) Referendum. See December 12th post here.
A number of depositions have already been taken in preparation for the election contest that is scheduled to be heard before Chancellor Telford Forgety in Sevier County Chancery Court on Jan 10-11, 2013. Information on deposition testimony by poll workers is here.
The attorney for the Sevier County Election Commission which handles voting in Pigeon Forge has stated that he agrees with poll workers who stated that it (Election Day) was a "confusing and chaotic" day.
Attorney Dennis Francis also stated that most of the "extra" votes case in the referendum election will come from those who live in Sevier County but outside of the Pigeon Forge city limits. Francis claims that those "extra" votes, which are alleged to be around 303, may be lower than 303 but "not significantly lower."
In the LBTD referendum, there were 1232 votes FOR and 1132 AGAINST. Since the referendum only passed with a 100-vote margin and the validity of 303 votes is in question, the election contest will prove to be very interesting.
Because the election was certified, liquor licenses have been granted. Here.
As in many cities, individuals who do not live in Pigeon Forge but who own property there may vote in city elections. In addition to various irregularities at the polling places, today's News-Sentinel article includes information on property deeds made out to more than a dozen non-residents right before the referendum.
These deeds were drafted by Knoxville arrorney Elizabeth Martin and enabled these individuals, including the attorney, to vote in the LBTD referendum. The deeds transfer a 1% interest in commercial property to the Knoxville attorney and several others and show "$0" as the consideration or amount paid for the 1% interest. After the election, at least three of the "new" property owners, including the attorney who drafted the deeds, deeded the property back to LeConte Village, LLC
The News-Sentinel also reports that the FBI met recently with and obtained records from the group (Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge) that opposed the LBTD referendum and that filed the election contest.
A number of depositions have already been taken in preparation for the election contest that is scheduled to be heard before Chancellor Telford Forgety in Sevier County Chancery Court on Jan 10-11, 2013. Information on deposition testimony by poll workers is here.
The attorney for the Sevier County Election Commission which handles voting in Pigeon Forge has stated that he agrees with poll workers who stated that it (Election Day) was a "confusing and chaotic" day.
Attorney Dennis Francis also stated that most of the "extra" votes case in the referendum election will come from those who live in Sevier County but outside of the Pigeon Forge city limits. Francis claims that those "extra" votes, which are alleged to be around 303, may be lower than 303 but "not significantly lower."
In the LBTD referendum, there were 1232 votes FOR and 1132 AGAINST. Since the referendum only passed with a 100-vote margin and the validity of 303 votes is in question, the election contest will prove to be very interesting.
Because the election was certified, liquor licenses have been granted. Here.
As in many cities, individuals who do not live in Pigeon Forge but who own property there may vote in city elections. In addition to various irregularities at the polling places, today's News-Sentinel article includes information on property deeds made out to more than a dozen non-residents right before the referendum.
These deeds were drafted by Knoxville arrorney Elizabeth Martin and enabled these individuals, including the attorney, to vote in the LBTD referendum. The deeds transfer a 1% interest in commercial property to the Knoxville attorney and several others and show "$0" as the consideration or amount paid for the 1% interest. After the election, at least three of the "new" property owners, including the attorney who drafted the deeds, deeded the property back to LeConte Village, LLC
The News-Sentinel also reports that the FBI met recently with and obtained records from the group (Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge) that opposed the LBTD referendum and that filed the election contest.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
December 12, 2012 Election Contest Filed in Sevier Chancery Court in Pigeon Forge Liquor-by-the-Drink Referendum
A liquor-by-the-drink referendum was held in Pigeon Forge on November 6.
On November 19, the Sevier County Election Commission certified the results of the LBTD referendum, 1,232 FOR and 1,132 AGAINST, for a total of 2,364 votes cast on the LBTD question.
A lawsuit was then filed by a group opposed to LBTD alleging that irregularities in the conduct of the election and discrepancies in the final tally make the results of the vote "incurably uncertain."
Among the problems cited in the Complaint, it is stated that Election Commission records show that 2,061 registered voters cast votes in the LBTD referendum, but the Election Commission certified final results showing that 2,364 votes were cast in the LBTD referendum.
The suit asks that the current referendum be voided and a new referendum held.
The Sevier County Chancery lawsuit is here. The News-Sentinel article with a link to the lawsuit is here.
Articles are here, here, here, and here.
On November 19, the Sevier County Election Commission certified the results of the LBTD referendum, 1,232 FOR and 1,132 AGAINST, for a total of 2,364 votes cast on the LBTD question.
A lawsuit was then filed by a group opposed to LBTD alleging that irregularities in the conduct of the election and discrepancies in the final tally make the results of the vote "incurably uncertain."
Among the problems cited in the Complaint, it is stated that Election Commission records show that 2,061 registered voters cast votes in the LBTD referendum, but the Election Commission certified final results showing that 2,364 votes were cast in the LBTD referendum.
The suit asks that the current referendum be voided and a new referendum held.
The Sevier County Chancery lawsuit is here. The News-Sentinel article with a link to the lawsuit is here.
Articles are here, here, here, and here.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
June 12, 2007 Reinhardt Loses Election Contest Appeal
One of the closest races in the August 2006 Hamblen County election was the race for 4th district county commissioner.
Reece Sexton was declared the winner over Bobby Reinhardt by two votes (160-158), but only after a long night (and early morning) of repeated tabulations at the Courthouse.
Reinhardt contested the election in chancery court, maintaining that two paper ballots cast during early voting were illegal votes because they were not in strict compliance with T.C.A. 2-6-104. He lost.
[See my posts here (I), here (II), and here (III) for discussion of testimony at the trial and the chancellor's decision. ]
Reinhardt appealed the trial court's decision. In an opinion handed down yesterday, the Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the trial court, refusing to void the results of the 4th district county commission race.
Left undecided by the Court of Appeals, however, was the central issue that was raised by Reinhardt on appeal, i.e. whether two paper ballots cast during early voting in the 4th district were legal or illegal votes.
The COA stated that without a transcript of Election Administrator Wanda Neal's testimony or a statement of the evidence, the Court had to assume that the proof at trial supported the trial court's decision in favor of Sexton.
Reece Sexton was declared the winner over Bobby Reinhardt by two votes (160-158), but only after a long night (and early morning) of repeated tabulations at the Courthouse.
Reinhardt contested the election in chancery court, maintaining that two paper ballots cast during early voting were illegal votes because they were not in strict compliance with T.C.A. 2-6-104. He lost.
[See my posts here (I), here (II), and here (III) for discussion of testimony at the trial and the chancellor's decision. ]
Reinhardt appealed the trial court's decision. In an opinion handed down yesterday, the Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the trial court, refusing to void the results of the 4th district county commission race.
Left undecided by the Court of Appeals, however, was the central issue that was raised by Reinhardt on appeal, i.e. whether two paper ballots cast during early voting in the 4th district were legal or illegal votes.
The COA stated that without a transcript of Election Administrator Wanda Neal's testimony or a statement of the evidence, the Court had to assume that the proof at trial supported the trial court's decision in favor of Sexton.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
November 1, 2006 Reinhardt Asks for Clarification of Election Law
In several posts at the end of September (26th, 27th, and 29th), I reported on the "Election Contest" filed by former Commissioners Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt after the August 3 Election.
In official and unofficial Election Reports handed out on Election Night, there were numerous mathematical oddities and conincidences as described at the Election Contest trial in September.
Ultimately, a Special Master (former Criminal Court Judge Eddie Beckner) was appointed. Beckner examined the machines and also reviewed the absentee and paper ballots cast in the District 1 race (Osborne-Lebel) and the District 4 race (Reinhardt-Sexton).
Subsequently, the vote count and the winners in both races (Lebel and Sexton) were left as originally reported.
Now an appeal has been filed by Bobby Reinhardt with the Trial Court and with the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
In addition, a direct appeal has been made to the Tennessee Supreme Court, seeking an immediate, quick, and final ruling on interpretation of state law regarding the conduct of early voting.
Reinhardt states that T.C.A. 2-6-104 is "plain and unambiguous."
2-6-104. Voting machines for early voting.
(a) A county election commission may use voting machines for early voting. The county election commission shall choose one (1) of the following options for its method of early voting.
(1) Place all races on a machine ballot;
(2) Place some of the races on a machine ballot and part of the races on a paper ballot; or
(3) Place all races on a paper ballot.
In early voting, votes in the District 4 race were cast partly by machine ballots and partly by paper ballots (with two paper ballots being cast).
Chancellor Corlew noted the problematic wording of the statute and said that he "recognized that the interpretation of T.C.A. 2-6-104 is a matter on which reasonable minds can differ...."
The Chancellor chose not to throw out the two paper ballots cast during early voting in the Reinhardt-Sexton race, saying that the voters who cast the paper ballots during early voting would have proceeded to vote by machine (had they not been given the paper ballots) and thus the results of the race would have been the same.
Reinhardt maintains that the statute is "plain and unambiguous" and that only one interpretation of the statute---as currently written--- can be reached. As a result, Reinhardt wants the two paper ballots cast in early voting in District 4 to be discarded as "having been illegally cast" and the District 4 election declared either void or a mathematical tie.
In official and unofficial Election Reports handed out on Election Night, there were numerous mathematical oddities and conincidences as described at the Election Contest trial in September.
Ultimately, a Special Master (former Criminal Court Judge Eddie Beckner) was appointed. Beckner examined the machines and also reviewed the absentee and paper ballots cast in the District 1 race (Osborne-Lebel) and the District 4 race (Reinhardt-Sexton).
Subsequently, the vote count and the winners in both races (Lebel and Sexton) were left as originally reported.
Now an appeal has been filed by Bobby Reinhardt with the Trial Court and with the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
In addition, a direct appeal has been made to the Tennessee Supreme Court, seeking an immediate, quick, and final ruling on interpretation of state law regarding the conduct of early voting.
Reinhardt states that T.C.A. 2-6-104 is "plain and unambiguous."
2-6-104. Voting machines for early voting.
(a) A county election commission may use voting machines for early voting. The county election commission shall choose one (1) of the following options for its method of early voting.
(1) Place all races on a machine ballot;
(2) Place some of the races on a machine ballot and part of the races on a paper ballot; or
(3) Place all races on a paper ballot.
In early voting, votes in the District 4 race were cast partly by machine ballots and partly by paper ballots (with two paper ballots being cast).
Chancellor Corlew noted the problematic wording of the statute and said that he "recognized that the interpretation of T.C.A. 2-6-104 is a matter on which reasonable minds can differ...."
The Chancellor chose not to throw out the two paper ballots cast during early voting in the Reinhardt-Sexton race, saying that the voters who cast the paper ballots during early voting would have proceeded to vote by machine (had they not been given the paper ballots) and thus the results of the race would have been the same.
Reinhardt maintains that the statute is "plain and unambiguous" and that only one interpretation of the statute---as currently written--- can be reached. As a result, Reinhardt wants the two paper ballots cast in early voting in District 4 to be discarded as "having been illegally cast" and the District 4 election declared either void or a mathematical tie.
Friday, September 29, 2006
September 29, 2006 Change in Date for Selection of Special Master
There has been a change in the date/deadline for Selection of a Special Master in the Election Contest filed by Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt.
Scroll down to see previous posts of September 26 and 27 for background on the Election Contest and trial testimony.
The Master will supervise the court-ordered recount in County Commission race District 1 (Osborne v. Lebel) and District 4 (Reinhardt v. Sexton).
The Master will also examine the Microvote voting machines (new and old) in Hamblen County.
The new date or deadline for selection of the Master is apparently October 4. [Originally, a Saturday, September 30, date was shown in the Memorandum Opinion. ]
Expect the recount of machine and paper ballots to proceed quickly once the Master is appointed by the Chancellor since the machines have to be ready to go for the November election.
Scroll down to see previous posts of September 26 and 27 for background on the Election Contest and trial testimony.
The Master will supervise the court-ordered recount in County Commission race District 1 (Osborne v. Lebel) and District 4 (Reinhardt v. Sexton).
The Master will also examine the Microvote voting machines (new and old) in Hamblen County.
The new date or deadline for selection of the Master is apparently October 4. [Originally, a Saturday, September 30, date was shown in the Memorandum Opinion. ]
Expect the recount of machine and paper ballots to proceed quickly once the Master is appointed by the Chancellor since the machines have to be ready to go for the November election.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
September 26, 2006 Hamblen County Election Contest (II)
Readers should scroll down and read my previous post (Hamblen County Election Contest I) before reading the trial details provided in this post.
An Election Contest complaint was filed by attorney Paul Whetstone on behalf of County Commissioners Edwin Osborne (1st district) and Bobby Reinhardt (4th district) in connection with the Aug. 3 election. A Trial was held in Hamblen County on September 22. Most of the allegations of Osborne and Reinhardt are found in my previous post (I).
After hearing the testimony of the Petitioners (Osborne and Reinhardt) and petitioners' witnesses as well as the testimony of Respondents (Wanda Neal, Randall Johnson, and Dwaine Evans, Gayle Bruce) and respondents' witnesses, the Court delivered a Memorandum Opinion on September 26.
In his Opinion, Chancellor Corlew pointed out that Petitioners Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt testified in a firm and straightforward manner. He added that Respondent Wanda Neal testified in a matter of fact but "mildly confrontational manner" and that Election Commissioner Randall Johnson was "vigorous" in his own defense when questioned about his vocal support of a political candidate (Petitioner Osborne's opponent) while serving as a member of the election commission.
The Chancellor pointed out several reasons for the delay in tabulating the election results on August 3. One problem was the length of the Aug. 3 ballot. Other delays occurred because two types of Microvote machines were being used in Hamblen County for the first time.
In addition, delays resulted from Microvote software problems as well as issues connected with the two Microvote "contract employees" who had been provided to help in the tabulation of votes from the new Infinity machines.
Administrator of Elections Wanda Neal stated that these two workers were unfamiliar with the process for tabulating the vote. She also stated that it was her hope that Microvote would send other personnel to Morristown for the November election.
The Chancellor acknowledged the longer-than-normal delay in reporting the final results from the Aug. 3 election but stated that the delay, standing alone, is not significant.
What caused concern for the Chancellor were the clearly erroneous voting reports that were given out at various times during the night.
One of the first reports to be issued that night was a report of early voting totals.
Petitioner Osborne and 11th district commission candidate J. B. Elmore testified that they saw an early voting printout that had the candidates' names reversed and also had clearly erroneous early voting totals for their districts.
Osborne and Elmore pointed out to WCRK reporter Mike Rypel that the vote totals for each of their races were clearly wrong. As a result, Rypel did not report the first totals he had been given on air but, instead, took the report back in to the Election Commission office.
Election Commission Chair Dwaine Evans agreed that the early voting totals in commission races were wrong on this initial report but stated that the names were not reversed.
The Election Commission apparently no longer has a copy of the first erroneous early voting report that Osborne, Elmore, and Evans reviewed.
Later, another printout was provided to the press and to the candidates by the Election Commission. Osborne and Elmore testified that the names were listed in the correct order on the new printout but that the vote totals were still clearly erroneous.
The Chancellor stated that these factors and other coincidences that occurred that night cause the mind "not to rest easy as to the vote count. Thus, because of the combination of all these factors, we find that the Petitioners have carried the burden with respect to their demand for a recount."
In regard to Reinhardt's request that the election be voided due to the Election Commission allowing the use of machine ballots and paper ballots during early voting, the Chancellor stated that this could be interpreted as a violation of T.C.A. section 2-16-104 (which states that the county election commission shall choose one method of early voting, i.e.a race shall be on machine ballots, or a race shall be on paper ballots, or some races shall be on machine ballots and other races on paper ballots).
However, the Chancellor did not void the election because of this possible violation. There was no evidence of fraud in the casting of the two paper ballots, and the individuals would have likely voted by machine had they been required to do so.
The Chancellor did note that this was a very "sensitive" issue because Reinhardt lost by exactly two votes. If the two paper ballots had been for Reinhardt's opponent and if the Election Commission had chosen not to count them, then Reinhardt's race would have ended in a tie on August 3.
The Chancellor also refused to void the election on the basis of Election Commissioner Randall Johnson's vigorous support of Osborne's opponent Paul Lebel who is a business partner of Mr. Johnson's son (Morristown Mayor Gary Johnson).
The Chancellor discussed the importance of elected and appointed officials avoiding "even the appearance of impropriety" in carrying out their duties. While he noted Mr. Johnson's right of free speech, he also pointed out that the "better rule is that of maintaining neutrality and detachment in respect for the grave duties and responsibilities placed upon one as an election commissioner."
Several exhibits (mostly Election Commission documents) at the trial were contradictory.
For example, one document showed that 10,945 total votes had been cast with only 95% of precincts reporting.
You would expect, then, to see a higher number of votes when all precincts had reported.
Instead, another document showed that fewer votes----10,620 votes---- had been cast with 100% of precincts reporting.
CONCLUSION:
The Chancellor determined that the election should not be voided but that there should be a recount. The attorneys for the parties shall get together and agree upon a special Master. If they can't agree, then they will submit names to the Chancellor and a decision on appointment of a Master will be made by the end of the day on September 30.
The Master will conduct a machine and and paper ballot recount. The parties and their attorneys may be present.
The Master will also examine each of the machines used in District 1 (Osborne-Lebel) and District 4 (Reinhardt-Sexton) to make sure that when a voter pushes a button for Osborne that a vote is recorded for Osborne and likewise for Reinhardt.
An Election Contest complaint was filed by attorney Paul Whetstone on behalf of County Commissioners Edwin Osborne (1st district) and Bobby Reinhardt (4th district) in connection with the Aug. 3 election. A Trial was held in Hamblen County on September 22. Most of the allegations of Osborne and Reinhardt are found in my previous post (I).
After hearing the testimony of the Petitioners (Osborne and Reinhardt) and petitioners' witnesses as well as the testimony of Respondents (Wanda Neal, Randall Johnson, and Dwaine Evans, Gayle Bruce) and respondents' witnesses, the Court delivered a Memorandum Opinion on September 26.
In his Opinion, Chancellor Corlew pointed out that Petitioners Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt testified in a firm and straightforward manner. He added that Respondent Wanda Neal testified in a matter of fact but "mildly confrontational manner" and that Election Commissioner Randall Johnson was "vigorous" in his own defense when questioned about his vocal support of a political candidate (Petitioner Osborne's opponent) while serving as a member of the election commission.
The Chancellor pointed out several reasons for the delay in tabulating the election results on August 3. One problem was the length of the Aug. 3 ballot. Other delays occurred because two types of Microvote machines were being used in Hamblen County for the first time.
In addition, delays resulted from Microvote software problems as well as issues connected with the two Microvote "contract employees" who had been provided to help in the tabulation of votes from the new Infinity machines.
Administrator of Elections Wanda Neal stated that these two workers were unfamiliar with the process for tabulating the vote. She also stated that it was her hope that Microvote would send other personnel to Morristown for the November election.
The Chancellor acknowledged the longer-than-normal delay in reporting the final results from the Aug. 3 election but stated that the delay, standing alone, is not significant.
What caused concern for the Chancellor were the clearly erroneous voting reports that were given out at various times during the night.
One of the first reports to be issued that night was a report of early voting totals.
Petitioner Osborne and 11th district commission candidate J. B. Elmore testified that they saw an early voting printout that had the candidates' names reversed and also had clearly erroneous early voting totals for their districts.
Osborne and Elmore pointed out to WCRK reporter Mike Rypel that the vote totals for each of their races were clearly wrong. As a result, Rypel did not report the first totals he had been given on air but, instead, took the report back in to the Election Commission office.
Election Commission Chair Dwaine Evans agreed that the early voting totals in commission races were wrong on this initial report but stated that the names were not reversed.
The Election Commission apparently no longer has a copy of the first erroneous early voting report that Osborne, Elmore, and Evans reviewed.
Later, another printout was provided to the press and to the candidates by the Election Commission. Osborne and Elmore testified that the names were listed in the correct order on the new printout but that the vote totals were still clearly erroneous.
The Chancellor stated that these factors and other coincidences that occurred that night cause the mind "not to rest easy as to the vote count. Thus, because of the combination of all these factors, we find that the Petitioners have carried the burden with respect to their demand for a recount."
In regard to Reinhardt's request that the election be voided due to the Election Commission allowing the use of machine ballots and paper ballots during early voting, the Chancellor stated that this could be interpreted as a violation of T.C.A. section 2-16-104 (which states that the county election commission shall choose one method of early voting, i.e.a race shall be on machine ballots, or a race shall be on paper ballots, or some races shall be on machine ballots and other races on paper ballots).
However, the Chancellor did not void the election because of this possible violation. There was no evidence of fraud in the casting of the two paper ballots, and the individuals would have likely voted by machine had they been required to do so.
The Chancellor did note that this was a very "sensitive" issue because Reinhardt lost by exactly two votes. If the two paper ballots had been for Reinhardt's opponent and if the Election Commission had chosen not to count them, then Reinhardt's race would have ended in a tie on August 3.
The Chancellor also refused to void the election on the basis of Election Commissioner Randall Johnson's vigorous support of Osborne's opponent Paul Lebel who is a business partner of Mr. Johnson's son (Morristown Mayor Gary Johnson).
The Chancellor discussed the importance of elected and appointed officials avoiding "even the appearance of impropriety" in carrying out their duties. While he noted Mr. Johnson's right of free speech, he also pointed out that the "better rule is that of maintaining neutrality and detachment in respect for the grave duties and responsibilities placed upon one as an election commissioner."
Several exhibits (mostly Election Commission documents) at the trial were contradictory.
For example, one document showed that 10,945 total votes had been cast with only 95% of precincts reporting.
You would expect, then, to see a higher number of votes when all precincts had reported.
Instead, another document showed that fewer votes----10,620 votes---- had been cast with 100% of precincts reporting.
CONCLUSION:
The Chancellor determined that the election should not be voided but that there should be a recount. The attorneys for the parties shall get together and agree upon a special Master. If they can't agree, then they will submit names to the Chancellor and a decision on appointment of a Master will be made by the end of the day on September 30.
The Master will conduct a machine and and paper ballot recount. The parties and their attorneys may be present.
The Master will also examine each of the machines used in District 1 (Osborne-Lebel) and District 4 (Reinhardt-Sexton) to make sure that when a voter pushes a button for Osborne that a vote is recorded for Osborne and likewise for Reinhardt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)