Wesley v. Washington County Democratic Executive Committee
235 So. 3d 1379
| Miss. | 2017Background
- August 4, 2015 Democratic primary for Washington County District 3 Supervisor: McGee 448 votes, Wesley 378 (70-vote margin). Wesley challenged the election seeking a new election based on alleged procedural irregularities.
- Wesley alleged multiple ballot-box security failures (improper seals, unsecured boxes in courthouse hallway, missing machine memory card/results, improper handling/tallying of affidavit/absentee ballots, and involvement of election commissioners in WCDEC canvass).
- Both sides moved for summary judgment; circuit court granted summary judgment to McGee and the Washington County Democratic Executive Committee (WCDEC), concluding Wesley failed to show enough illegal/disqualified votes to change the result or render the voters' will unknowable.
- Wesley conceded he may not have alleged fraud and did not identify any specific discrepancies in the vote totals; record showed only 24 paper ballots and the vast majority (97.2%) were electronic votes.
- Court applied Mississippi two‑prong test (Noxubee County): new election warranted only if (1) enough illegal votes to change result or (2) so many votes disqualified the voters’ will cannot be ascertained. Court affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedural/ballot‑box security irregularities require a new election | Wesley: pervasive security lapses call all votes into question and require a new election | McGee/WCDEC: irregularities affected only a small number of paper ballots; no evidence EVM results were compromised | Held: No new election — irregularities shown insufficient to render voters’ will unknowable |
| Whether enough illegal or disqualified votes exist to change the result | Wesley: cannot know how many paper ballots were cast due to unsecured boxes; could affect outcome | Defendants: only 24 paper ballots; even discounting all would not change result; EVM votes uncontested | Held: Wesley failed to raise genuine issue of material fact that disqualified votes could change outcome |
| Whether proof of fraud or intentional misconduct is required to void the election | Wesley: fraud not alleged; argues fraud not required if integrity destroyed | Defendants: emphasize lack of fraudulent/intentional misconduct allegations and no proof of altered counts | Held: Fraud not required historically, but here absence of evidence of tampering with EVMs or vote totals dooms the challenge |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Wesley: contested facts about security and missing materials preclude summary judgment | Defendants: evidence does not create material factual dispute as to outcome; majority of votes on EVMs unaffected | Held: Affirmed — viewing evidence in plaintiff’s favor, no genuine issue that would require trial or new election |
Key Cases Cited
- Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee v. Russell, 443 So.2d 1191 (Miss. 1983) (articulates two‑prong test for when to void an election)
- Waters v. Gnemi, 907 So.2d 307 (Miss. 2005) (approved ordering a new primary where control and security of materials broke down)
- Rogers v. Holder, 636 So.2d 645 (Miss. 1994) (distinguishes mandatory vs. directory election statutes and effects on vote validity)
- Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Guidant Mut. Ins. Co., 99 So.3d 142 (Miss. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment: de novo)
- Kilhullen v. Kansas City S. Ry., 8 So.3d 168 (Miss. 2009) (evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)