At the county commission meeting on June 18 and in the June 19th edition of the local "news"paper, Wanda Neal's retirement from the position of Administrator of Elections in Hamblen County was finally announced.
I mentioned her retirement in several previous posts, here, here, and here.
The paper added the "news" that there are already four applicants for the $62,000/year position, that the position will be filled in a meeting of the Hamblen County Election Commission on June 26, and that others can still apply. The four current applicants are apparently Manny Bedwell, Nina Fullington, Jeff Gardner, and Stewart Leonard.
The paper did not state when the application process was first opened or if the position had ever previously been advertised to the public. The paper did not state how long these four applications had been turned in.
The article did state that others can still apply, but there was no deadline given for additional applications.
Showing posts with label Wanda Neal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wanda Neal. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
June 18, 2009 And the New Hamblen County Administrator of Elections Is....
Rumor is that the meeting of the local 5-person election commission will be held soon to appoint a local Administrator of Elections. Wanda Neal is the current Administrator. Click here for the names of the Election Commissioners and other background information.
Joe Swann serves as chairman of the Commission. Click here for the post on Joe's April resignation from the Hamblen County Commission in order to achieve his "lifelong dream" of serving on the Hamblen County Election Commission.
With the recent switch in all 95 counties to a Republican-majority local Election Commission, many counties already have a new Administrator of Elections or are in the process of appointing a new local Administrator.
In Knox County, the new Republican-majority election commission opened up the process and allowed interested individuals to apply for Knox County Administrator of Elections. Forty-five people submitted applications. The list will be narrowed down by the election commissioners and then actual interviews of the finalists will take place in about two weeks prior to taking a vote and making an appointment. Click here for the Knoxville News-Sentinel article.
I must have missed the article in the local "news"paper where interested individuals were asked to submit applications for the local $62,000/year position of Hamblen County Administrator of Elections.
Or maybe, after the next meeting of the Hamblen County Election Commission, there will be an announcement that the position is open and then applications will be requested and interviews conducted.
Or maybe the discussions have already taken place, someone has been selected, and there is no need to waste time taking applications and interviewing people.
Joe Swann serves as chairman of the Commission. Click here for the post on Joe's April resignation from the Hamblen County Commission in order to achieve his "lifelong dream" of serving on the Hamblen County Election Commission.
With the recent switch in all 95 counties to a Republican-majority local Election Commission, many counties already have a new Administrator of Elections or are in the process of appointing a new local Administrator.
In Knox County, the new Republican-majority election commission opened up the process and allowed interested individuals to apply for Knox County Administrator of Elections. Forty-five people submitted applications. The list will be narrowed down by the election commissioners and then actual interviews of the finalists will take place in about two weeks prior to taking a vote and making an appointment. Click here for the Knoxville News-Sentinel article.
I must have missed the article in the local "news"paper where interested individuals were asked to submit applications for the local $62,000/year position of Hamblen County Administrator of Elections.
Or maybe, after the next meeting of the Hamblen County Election Commission, there will be an announcement that the position is open and then applications will be requested and interviews conducted.
Or maybe the discussions have already taken place, someone has been selected, and there is no need to waste time taking applications and interviewing people.
Monday, June 15, 2009
June 15, 2009 Knox County Takes Applications (45) for Election Administrator Position
As a follow-up to Friday's post about the likely change in the local Administrator of Elections post, I see that Knox County recently took formal applications for the Knox County Election Administrator position. Forty-five individuals applied.
Click here for the News-Sentinel article and there's even a link (top left of story) to the complete list of applicants for the Knox County Administator of Elections post. Knox County's current Administrator of Elections Greg Mackay has applied for re-appointment to the position.
In Hamblen County, the rumor is that Wanda Neal, current Administrator of Elections, will resign rather than seek re-appointment from the new Republican-majority local election commission.
Click here for my previous post on the $62,000/year Hamblen County Administrator of Elections post.
Lots of rumors have been going around since January about individuals with various political connections who want the local Administrator of Elections job, but I haven't seen any advertisement or request for applications for the local position.
When the position does open up, will applications be taken? Would a current employee of the Election Commission with experience in day-to-day operations of the office be given a fair shake if he or she applied? Or will this just be a plum position that is handed out as a reward to a "deserving" politico?
Click here for the News-Sentinel article and there's even a link (top left of story) to the complete list of applicants for the Knox County Administator of Elections post. Knox County's current Administrator of Elections Greg Mackay has applied for re-appointment to the position.
In Hamblen County, the rumor is that Wanda Neal, current Administrator of Elections, will resign rather than seek re-appointment from the new Republican-majority local election commission.
Click here for my previous post on the $62,000/year Hamblen County Administrator of Elections post.
Lots of rumors have been going around since January about individuals with various political connections who want the local Administrator of Elections job, but I haven't seen any advertisement or request for applications for the local position.
When the position does open up, will applications be taken? Would a current employee of the Election Commission with experience in day-to-day operations of the office be given a fair shake if he or she applied? Or will this just be a plum position that is handed out as a reward to a "deserving" politico?
Friday, June 12, 2009
June 12, 2009 New Hamblen County Election Administrator?
There is a rather persistent rumor that Wanda Neal, current Hamblen County Administrator of Elections, will resign soon and open the way for the new Republican majority on the Hamblen County Election Commission to appoint a new administrator to the post.
The local position of Administrator of Elections is a plum appointed position with pay of around $62,000 plus health insurance, benefits, retirement, etc.
After her initial appointment and throughout the years that the Democrats continued to have a majority in the state legislature and thus a majority on the local election commission, Wanda was reappointed by the Democrat majority Hamblen County Election Commission.
With the new Republican majority in the state legislature and thus on the local election commission, it appears that Wanda's re-appointment will not take place and so she is going to resign/retire.
If she retires, there will not be a court fight as is occurring in a few counties where longtime Democrat-appointed administrators don't want to give up their position despite the change in election commissions across the state.
At various times, I heard that one of the current Republican election commissioners (Judy Blackburn) wanted Wanda's job and that at least two other individuals wanted the post.
With the recent appointment of Hamblen Election Commissioner Judy Blackburn to the state election commission, it's up in the air as to whether she still wants the Administrator's post or whether either of the two other Republican election commissioners (Lyle Doty and Joe Swann) might decide to seek the Administrator's job.
Of course, things can change rapidly. Nobody knows for sure at this point. It's possible that Wanda might keep the job or that a well-connected "outsider" might emerge as a dark-horse appointment.
Members of the Election Commission are Gayle Bruce (D), Dwaine Evans (D), Judy Blackburn (R), Lyle Doty (R), and Joe Swann (R).
The local position of Administrator of Elections is a plum appointed position with pay of around $62,000 plus health insurance, benefits, retirement, etc.
After her initial appointment and throughout the years that the Democrats continued to have a majority in the state legislature and thus a majority on the local election commission, Wanda was reappointed by the Democrat majority Hamblen County Election Commission.
With the new Republican majority in the state legislature and thus on the local election commission, it appears that Wanda's re-appointment will not take place and so she is going to resign/retire.
If she retires, there will not be a court fight as is occurring in a few counties where longtime Democrat-appointed administrators don't want to give up their position despite the change in election commissions across the state.
At various times, I heard that one of the current Republican election commissioners (Judy Blackburn) wanted Wanda's job and that at least two other individuals wanted the post.
With the recent appointment of Hamblen Election Commissioner Judy Blackburn to the state election commission, it's up in the air as to whether she still wants the Administrator's post or whether either of the two other Republican election commissioners (Lyle Doty and Joe Swann) might decide to seek the Administrator's job.
Of course, things can change rapidly. Nobody knows for sure at this point. It's possible that Wanda might keep the job or that a well-connected "outsider" might emerge as a dark-horse appointment.
Members of the Election Commission are Gayle Bruce (D), Dwaine Evans (D), Judy Blackburn (R), Lyle Doty (R), and Joe Swann (R).
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
December 30, 2008 Parker and King Demoted but Keep County Jobs. King Resigns Constable Position Effective December 31
Hamblen County Constable Paul King has resigned as Constable with an effective date of December 31. His resignation letter (above left) is dated December 9 and is addressed To Whom It May Concern. The "December 9" resignation letter was not turned in until December 16.
King's resignation had first been requested by County Mayor David Purkey in a December 5th letter to King (above). When the County Mayor received no response from King, the Hamblen County Ethics Committee met on December 15 and backed up the request for King's resignation. Apparently, the next day (December 16), King turned in his "December 9" resignation letter to Wanda Neal, Administrator of Elections, and she faxed it to county attorney Rusty Cantwell.
King's resignation had first been requested by County Mayor David Purkey in a December 5th letter to King (above). When the County Mayor received no response from King, the Hamblen County Ethics Committee met on December 15 and backed up the request for King's resignation. Apparently, the next day (December 16), King turned in his "December 9" resignation letter to Wanda Neal, Administrator of Elections, and she faxed it to county attorney Rusty Cantwell.
King was manager of Cherokee Park when he and his boss (Cherokee Park Director Frank Parker) were indicted in May 2008 by a Hamblen County grand jury for theft over $500 for charging Albert Walker $750 to get Walker's car out of the Sheriff's impound lot when both knew that no money was due to remove the car. [Parker was also indicted for felony official misconduct].
King's boss and Co-Defendant Frank Parker requested and was granted pre-trial diversion on theft and official misconduct charges by District Attorney Berkeley Bell in July 2008. (click to view previous post)
Parker, who had previously resigned his county commission position, was stripped of his deputy sheriff status by Sheriff Esco Jarnagin. (click to view previous post)
King applied for diversion but was ineligible due to a prior offense. King pled guilty to a lesser-charge (theft under $500) in Hamblen County Criminal Court on November 21, 2008. (click to view previous post)
On December 5, County Mayor David Purkey sent a disciplinary letter to each man. (Click on images above to enlarge and read).
Frank Parker was demoted from Director of Cherokee Park to Maintenance Technician and was "suspended without pay for multiple three (3) day periods encompassing the month of February."
Paul King was demoted to Sanitation Worker, suspended without pay for multiple 3-day periods encompassing the month of January, and "transferred to an undetermined county department effective February 1, 2009." County Mayor Purkey also requested King's resignation as constable to avoid ouster proceedings.
On December 16, King finally turned in his resignation letter to Wanda Neal.
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, September 27, 2006
September 27, 2006 Hamblen County Election (III)
The previous posts (I) and (II) reported the chancellor's ruling in the Election Contest filed by Edwin Osborne and Bobby Reinhardt.
I attended the September 22 trial. It was an excellent pressentation of evidence and testimony about what happened on Aug. 3 during vote-counting.
County Commissioner Nancy Phillips was there in the morning, and County Mayor David Purkey was there at different times during the day.
Since I did not run for re-election, I was not at the Courthouse after the polls closed on Aug. 3.
At the trial, the atmosphere was referred to as a "zoo." Several people who were there agreed with that assessment. A witness testifying on behalf of the Election Commission stated that it was "controlled chaos."
If you are regular blog reader, you know that numbers are important to me---see the July 8, 2005, post where I spotted and got corrected the $1 million dollar mistake by the state in setting the county's certified tax rate in 2005.
Numbers were important in the Election Contest trials. Numbers, documents, and vote tallies that came out of the Election Commission Office on August 3 were put into evidence.
Two documents were unusual. One said that 95% of the precincts had reported and that total of 10,945 votes had been cast. Another document said that 100% of the precincts had reported and 10,620 votes had been cast. There is a problem here---a computer glitch, human error, or some other problem.
Exhibit 7 (which was retrieved for Commissioner Osborne from a recycling box by Election Administrator Wanda Neal) showed that 731 votes were cast in District 1 and 375 were cast in District 4.
Exhibit 5, however, showed that 466 votes were cast in District 1, and 319 were cast in District 4.
How do you go from a report of 731 votes cast to a report of only 466 votes cast? How do you go from 375 votes cast to only 319 votes cast?
The explanation, hopefully, will come from the Special Master who will conduct the recount, check the machines, and check the paper ballots.
Perhaps the contradictory documents and totals that were put out at various times may be explained by human error, plain old mistakes, transposition of numbers, stress and rushing.
Whatever the explanation of the differing information on the reports that were provided that night, events such as this should be resolved.
A recount and an examination of the machines should answer many of the questions about the "controlled chaos" of August 3.
With electronic data and computerization, there needs to be some understanding and an explanation of how one set of numbers came out of the machines at one point in time and another smaller set of numbers came out later.
It seems plausible to have smaller vote totals during the early steps of the counting process and then larger vote totals later on as all votes are counted.
It is difficult, however, to understand how you can have larger vote totals in the early part of the counting process and then smaller vote totals in the end.
I attended the September 22 trial. It was an excellent pressentation of evidence and testimony about what happened on Aug. 3 during vote-counting.
County Commissioner Nancy Phillips was there in the morning, and County Mayor David Purkey was there at different times during the day.
Since I did not run for re-election, I was not at the Courthouse after the polls closed on Aug. 3.
At the trial, the atmosphere was referred to as a "zoo." Several people who were there agreed with that assessment. A witness testifying on behalf of the Election Commission stated that it was "controlled chaos."
If you are regular blog reader, you know that numbers are important to me---see the July 8, 2005, post where I spotted and got corrected the $1 million dollar mistake by the state in setting the county's certified tax rate in 2005.
Numbers were important in the Election Contest trials. Numbers, documents, and vote tallies that came out of the Election Commission Office on August 3 were put into evidence.
Two documents were unusual. One said that 95% of the precincts had reported and that total of 10,945 votes had been cast. Another document said that 100% of the precincts had reported and 10,620 votes had been cast. There is a problem here---a computer glitch, human error, or some other problem.
Exhibit 7 (which was retrieved for Commissioner Osborne from a recycling box by Election Administrator Wanda Neal) showed that 731 votes were cast in District 1 and 375 were cast in District 4.
Exhibit 5, however, showed that 466 votes were cast in District 1, and 319 were cast in District 4.
How do you go from a report of 731 votes cast to a report of only 466 votes cast? How do you go from 375 votes cast to only 319 votes cast?
The explanation, hopefully, will come from the Special Master who will conduct the recount, check the machines, and check the paper ballots.
Perhaps the contradictory documents and totals that were put out at various times may be explained by human error, plain old mistakes, transposition of numbers, stress and rushing.
Whatever the explanation of the differing information on the reports that were provided that night, events such as this should be resolved.
A recount and an examination of the machines should answer many of the questions about the "controlled chaos" of August 3.
With electronic data and computerization, there needs to be some understanding and an explanation of how one set of numbers came out of the machines at one point in time and another smaller set of numbers came out later.
It seems plausible to have smaller vote totals during the early steps of the counting process and then larger vote totals later on as all votes are counted.
It is difficult, however, to understand how you can have larger vote totals in the early part of the counting process and then smaller vote totals in the end.
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)
