Savage v. EdwardsSavage v. Edwards
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Per Curiam (per curiam)
We granted certiorari in this election contest case to review a decision of the court of appeal which reversed a trial court ruling declaring the November 3, 1998 general election for mayor of the town of Jonesville, Louisiana void and ordering a new election.
After reviewing the record and considering the arguments of counsel, we conclude that the result reached by the court of appeal was correct; the number of votes proven to have been cast illegally or fraudulently was not sufficient to change the result of the election.
JOHNSON and KNOLL, JJ., dissent and assign reasons.
LEMMON, J., Concurring.
While I agree with the result, I disagree with the reasoning of the court of appeal in the present case, as well as with the reasoning of the majority of this court in Moreau v. Tonry, 339 So.2d 3 (La.1976).
In Moreau, the apparent winner had a 184-vote victory margin, but the evidence established, among other irregularities, that there were 616 votes on the machines for which there were no voters’ signatures on the precinct registers, prompting Judge Redmann at the intermediate appellate level to observe: “[f]ew candidates indeed could muster the forces that mastered the foulness of [the Moreau—Tonry] election.” 338 So.2d 791, 795 (La.App. 4th Cir.1976). The intermediate court (on which I was then serving) annulled the election, warning that “[i]n future election contests, candidates (and their commissioners) should know that a vote on the machine without a voter‘s signature in the precinct register (or other lawful support) will not be allowed to decide an election.” Id.
Neither should vote buying, forged voting papers or other such foul practices be allowed to decide any election. When the evidence establishes fraudulent practices (especially where the candidate is involved) which are so pervasive that one can reasonably conclude the apparent winner did not have sufficient valid votes to prevail in the election, a new election should be required.
It is difficult to articulate a standard for annulling an election in which widespread election fraud has been proved, but specific fraudulent votes in a number sufficient to cover the winner‘s margin of victory have not been proved. However, deciding difficult legal issues goes to the very heart of the judicial process.1 We granted certiorari in the present case to address the issue of the standard to establish and to begin drawing lines on a case-by-case basis.2 However, since the record does not support a conclusion that the fraud and irregularities are so pervasive as to require nullification of the election, the articulation of an appropriate standard must await another day. I therefore concur in affirming the judgment of the court of appeal.
JOHNSON, J., Dissenting.
I agree with the conclusion reached by the Trial Court in this case. Based on the facts found by that court, the trial judge was correct in declaring the election void and in ordering a new election. In my opinion the Court of Appeal erred.
If the trial judge in an action contesting an election determines that: (1) it is impossible to determine the result of election, or (2) the number of qualified voters who were denied the right to vote by the election officials was sufficient to change the result in the election, if they had been allowed to vote, or (3) the number of unqualified voters who were allowed to vote by the election officials was sufficient to change the result of the election if they had not been allowed to vote, or (4) a combination of the factors referred to in (2) and (3) herein would have been sufficient to change the result had they not occurred, the judge may render a final
judgment declaring the election void and ordering a new primary or general election for all the candidates, or, if the judge determines that the appropriate remedy is the calling of a restricted election, the judge may render a final judgment ordering a restricted election, specifying the date of the election, the appropriate candidates for the election, the office or other position for which the election shall be held, and indicating which voters will be eligible to vote. (emphasis added).
Kelly v. Village of Greenwood, 363 So.2d 887, 889 (La.1978) is the only decision rendered by this court since the election code was revised, effective January 1, 1978. In Kelly, we determined that the statutory scheme in
The election results show Billy Edwards with 802 votes and Roosevelt Savage with 728 votes. Edwards received 533 votes at the polls and 269 absentee votes, while Savage received 579 votes at the polls and 149 absentee votes. The Trial Court found that there was pervasive vote buying and fraud in this election, particularly with regard to absentee voting, and that many votes cast were illegal and fraudulent. The Court also recognized the difficulty in proving fraud and irregularities because of their clandestine nature and the difficulty in assembling evidence in such a short time, and that when fraud and irregularities in an election are systematic and flagrant, they infect far more votes than the vote margin between two candidates. In his petition, Mr. Savage challenged 93 votes in the November 3, 1998 election. After reviewing the evidence presented, the trial court threw out 40 votes due to fraud and irregularity.1
The Trial Court found it was impossible to determine the results of this election because of the pervasive fraud and illegal activities particularly during the absentee voting period. The testimony of Mona Briggs, also known as “Flapper“, an Edwards supporter showed that she and Linda Curry rode up and down the streets, with Linda yelling out the window to see if anyone wanted to go and vote absentee. Ms. Briggs testified that over a five day period she hauled close to 100 elderly people to the courthouse to vote absentee. She and Ms. Curry hauled these people in Mary Edwards’ Ford Explorer and she went in with at least two of the persons and filled in the ballot for them. The trial judge determined that Ms. Briggs and Ms. Curry were not merely hauling voters to the courthouse, they were actually engaged in vote buying and other illegal activities. Because of these activities, the votes of these two women were thrown out and at least 100 absentee votes are suspect. Pursuant to
The Secretary of State argues that
KNOLL, Justice, Dissenting.
In affirming a reversal of the trial court by the court of appeal, the majority totally ignores the provision of
If an action contesting an election were that easy to determine, the Legislature would have expressly said so. It did not. Instead, the Legislature precisely anticipated the facts involved in this election contest case and stated: “If the trial judge in an action contesting an election determines that: (1) it is impossible to determine the result of election,... the judge may render a final judgment declaring the election void and ordering a new primary or general election for all the candidates....”
The majority‘s holding is woefully weak and leaves so many important issues unresolved and unanswered. In an election contest case fraught with voter fraud, as was courageously recognized by the trial court in this case, this court should not ignore the mandates of our positive law, as relied upon by the trial court, without full explanation. By allowing this election to stand, despite the pervasive fraud, irregularity, and illegality overwhelmingly found by the trial court, the majority subverts the laws of this state and creates an incentive to foster the kind of practices the Code and our Legislature sought to eliminate.
Accordingly, I would reverse the court of appeal‘s decision and reinstate the trial court‘s judgment, finding it is impossible to determine the result of the election, declaring the election void, and ordering a new general election for all the candidates. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Notes
The Trial Court also recognized the importance of the grounds alleged for challenging the absentee ballots which were thrown out by the Board of Election Supervisors. One of the ballots was allegedly signed by Annie Farris, a nursing home resident, who was not allowed to vote at the polls because she had already voted absentee. Ms. Farris testified that she did not request an absentee ballot, she did not vote absentee, and the signatures on the application and the ballot were not her signatures. An absentee ballot was cast for Nasif Johnson, a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, who testified that he has not voted in Jonesville since 1977. He also stated that he did not request an absentee ballot, he did not authorize anyone to make a request on his behalf, and the signature on the ballot was not his signature. Jim Farris testified that the absentee ballot cast for him did not contain his signature, that he did not request the ballot, and that he has lived outside the Town of Jonesville for one and a half years. The other absentee ballots were thrown out because the ballots were not witnessed as required by law, however, the signatures were alleged to be forgeries and the individuals reside outside Jonesville. The Trial Court noted that Mr. Savage challenged 25 other absentee ballots, which were counted by the Board of Election Supervisors. Of the twenty-five counted, seven were found to reside outside the Town of Jonesville and two were the forged ballots of Sherwin Cummings and Lewis Johnson.