Several concerns will be addressed when Division II Christian County Circuit Court next convenes in the matters of Doug Wilcox, Mark Graham and a contentious race for the Ward 7 Republican primary nod to the Hopkinsville City Council.
During Wednesday’s status hearing, Judge John Atkins noted things will move “expeditiously toward resolution” beginning at 2 PM June 7.
At the forefront is a 28-page motion for dismissal of contesting the election from Wilcox’s attorney, James Adams III.
In the document, Adams said that while focus has been driven to the 109 ineligible votes that were cast by ineligible voters in precinct G104, the real issue is 36 eligible votes that were cast in the same precinct. Adams ascertains that those 36 votes are insufficient to overcome Wilcox’s 52-vote lead in the remaining precincts, and thus renders the voting irregularity moot.
Adams presented the document to Atkins a few minutes prior to the hearing, and Atkins stated while Graham’s attorney Ben Fletcher and County Attorney John Soyars would need time to review it, the document and its call need to be among the considered solutions.
From a preliminary standpoint, Atkins had other questions.
First, he asked if anyone had any issue with which the election records had been preserved in the basement of the justice center — and if there were concerns of ballot integrity in this manner.
Fletcher said he agreed with the order Atkins made to move all primary materials to the center’s basement, but did have issues with ballot integrity.
Second, Atkins asked County Clerk Mike Kem if there were polling issues outside of the Bruce Convention Center, to which Kem said that the 109 ineligible votes could’ve come from any voting center in the county.
Atkins said it seemed clear to him, through news reporting he’d read, that voting stations throughout the county were all identical in functionality — and that citizens could vote in all pertinent races, no matter their choice of voting station.
Adams added that if his motion to dismiss be denied and some other solution be created regarding Graham’s petition for a recount, state statute requires expediency.
Fletcher, Soyars and Adams III all agreed that a week would be enough time to review the motion to dismiss. But should a recount be in order, Atkins said next Tuesday afternoon would likely be the day for it.
An order for consolidation was presented to Atkins, as well, and he further addressed issues of inspecting the voting materials. He asked if the court wanted to set up separate proceedings to examine the ballots, machines and records, to which Adams, Fletcher and Soyars agreed should happen.
Soyars entered his concerns about a proposed protective order, in hopes that counsel would not reveal specific information of voters — including names and addresses — should the records be searched. Atkins asked if redacting the names of the ballots would be too arduous of a task.
Soyars said he could name the voters in question by number. Fletcher and Adams agreed.
Atkins ruled that if the voting ballots were reviewed, Sheriff Tyler DeArmond, any counsel and no less than two members of the Board of Elections be present for the process. Furthermore, Atkins said that DeArmond had posted two bailiffs at the justice center over the holiday weekend, in order to further maintain the safety and integrity of the voting materials.
In that May 17 primary, Wilcox defeated Graham 185-to-184, before Kem reported the 109 irregularities.
Adams’ motion can be found here: Graham-v-Wilcox-Motion-for-Judgment-on-the-Pleadings-060122.
