Harreld v. Banks
| Decision Date | 17 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2020-EC-00477-SCT,2020-EC-00477-SCT |
| Citation | 319 So.3d 1094 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jim HARRELD v. Karl BANKS |
BEFORE KING, P.J., CHAMBERLIN AND ISHEE, JJ.
¶1. Jim Harreld and Karl Banks ran for the position of District 4 Supervisor in Madison County. Banks won the November 5, 2019 election by fifty-seven votes. The Madison County Election Commission certified Banks as the winner of the election. Harreld challenged the election and asked the trial court to order a special election or to declare him the winner of the November election. The Madison County Circuit Court affirmed the election as certified. Harreld appeals. Because the trial court did not commit manifest error by finding that Harreld failed to meet the requisite standard of proof necessary to overturn an election, this Court affirms the trial court's judgment.
¶2. Banks won the Madison County Board of Supervisors District 4 election by fifty-seven votes in the November 5, 2019 general election. Banks, a Democrat, received 3,524 votes and Harreld, a Republican, received 3,467 votes. The Madison County Election Commission certified the election results and filed them with the secretary of state. Harreld filed an election contest petition with the Madison County Circuit Court alleging that three split precincts gave out thirty-seven incorrect ballot styles, that thirty-three absentee ballots were illegally counted, that nine affidavit ballots were improperly counted, that three affidavit ballots were improperly rejected, that the Statewide Election Management System (SEMS) placed voters in the incorrect supervisor district, that nine ballots were not initialed by poll managers, that one resolution ballot was not counted, and that twenty-five individuals who no longer reside in District 4 voted in the District 4 election. Harreld requested that the court decertify the election and order a special election for Supervisor District 4. He subsequently filed three amended petitions additionally alleging that six resolution ballots were not counted, that more than 200 individuals voted in District 4 who were incorrectly placed in District 4 by SEMS or who no longer reside at their listed address, and that 140 voters who reside in District 4 were incorrectly placed outside of District 4 by SEMS. He additionally requested that the court declare Harreld the winner of the election and seat him as the District 4 Supervisor. This Court appointed the Honorable Lamar Pickard as special judge to preside over the matter.
¶3. The current boundaries for District 4 were proposed in 2011 by the Madison County Board of Supervisors (Board of Supervisors) based on the 2010 census. After getting preclearance for the boundaries from the United States Department of Justice, the Board of Supervisors approved the new boundary lines for the five Madison County supervisor districts on May 31, 2011. The metes-and-bounds description for the district boundaries was placed in the May 31, 2011 Board of Supervisors meeting minutes. The district lines approved on May 31, 2011, have been in effect since that date.
¶4. The parties agreed to a bench trial. At trial, Harreld first called Anita Wray, the Madison County Circuit Clerk. Wray testified that when someone registers to vote at the circuit clerk's office, the circuit clerk's office inputs the person's name and their address into SEMS and it generates a voter registration card. She noted that the secretary of state is in charge of the SEMS system. Regarding absentee ballots executed at the circuit clerk's office, Wray testified that the first thing the circuit clerk's office checks is whether the voter is an active voter on the voter rolls.
¶5. Harreld called Kay Little, the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) administrator for the Madison County Board of Supervisors, to testify. She testified that the Central Mississippi Planning and Development District (CMPDD) used the metes-and-bounds description for district boundaries, and then provided her with a legal description and a map
to use for GIS. The parcel information in the GIS system comes from the Madison County Tax Assessor's Office. She noted that GIS relies on parcel identifications, and that not all parcel identifications have a corresponding physical address. She testified that it was her belief that the physical county land roll was placed into SEMS to generate voter information. She had no knowledge of the process used at the secretary of state's office or what mapping component SEMS used to generate information. She testified that "I don't know how SEMS even works." The maps about which Little testified and that were shown to the circuit court were not entered into evidence and consequently are not in the appellate record.
¶6. Harreld also called a professional surveyor, Robert Michael (Mike) Barnes. Barnes testified that he plotted the boundaries for District 4 himself by using the legal metes-and-bounds description, and that then he used Google Earth and Madison County's map viewer to ascertain where certain addresses were located. He testified regarding a list of addresses that SEMS classified as being in District 4 that in his opinion are not. For example, he testified that SEMS lists an entire road as within District 4 when, in his opinion, the district boundary line runs down the middle of the road so that addresses on one side are in District 4 and addresses on the other are in District 5. He testified that 100 voters voted in District 4 whose addresses do not fall within the District 4 boundary. He testified that SEMS placed 104 voters who live in District 4 in a different district. He further testified that precinct 310 did not fall within District 4.
¶7. Barnes admitted that he was not familiar with and did not examine SEMS. He also testified that, in using the GIS system, he found discrepancies between the GIS map and the map he created, as well as inaccuracies in the GIS lines. He specifically stated that he found "some errors, some discrepancies between the legal description and what was shown up there." He testified that the "legal description rules" if "the map is wrong." He stated that he based his opinions solely on the legal description and the address. He further testified that if an address were "close to the line," he would not use that address because "[i]t is too close to call." Yet, he also testified specifically that houses on opposite sides of the same street should be in different districts, meaning he did use addresses "close to the line," contradicting his assertion that he did not. The record indicates that the maps displayed at trial during Barnes's testimony were computer generated and were not entered into evidence, and they do not appear in the appellate record.
¶8. Gary Windham, a process server and a constable in Rankin County, testified that Harreld asked him to investigate a list of fifty-six voter addresses for voters who voted in the District 4 election. The addresses were all located in Canton and Flora.1 No indication was given at trial regarding how these particular addresses were chosen or why they were investigated. Windham testified that, in the time span of one day, he drove around and used his GPS to locate the fifty-six addresses, inspected all fifty-six addresses, and spoke to some neighbors. He testified that, for fifty-four of the addresses, the voter who corresponded to the address did not live at the address. He testified that the addresses included vacant lots, one commercial building, vacant or abandoned houses, houses under construction, or that the addresses did not exist. Windham also testified that he did not do any further investigation to identify where any of the voters then lived.
¶9. In rebuttal, Banks called five of the voters on Windham's list, all of whom testified that they lived at the listed addresses. He also called Robert Winn, a retired law enforcement officer who was the chief of police for the City of Canton from 2004-08 and the chief investigation officer for the Madison and Rankin County District Attorney's Office from 2008-18. He noted that the locations of the addresses investigated by Windham were "primarily in lower income black areas of Madison County and City of Canton and Flora." Winn testified that he did not investigate every property on Windham's list, but that he investigated a random sampling. He noted that his time was limited, and that he found "it impossible and pretty much suspicious for anyone to say that they was able to locate, find and talk with individuals, 40 - - 54 individuals within a certain period of time." He testified that "[e]ven if this list were put together in chronological order based on the street adjacent to each other or houses adjacent, it would take longer than three days, four days to do an accurate assessment of these particular properties."
¶10. Winn testified that 913 Merit Court, classified by Windham as a vacant lot, was a house, and Banks submitted a photograph. Winn stated that he spoke to the residents of the house. Winn testified that 615 Franklin Street, classified by Windham as abandoned, was occupied and submitted a photograph. He noted that the home was a duplex and that the front window was boarded up and not occupied, but that the other half was occupied and that he spoke to the resident. He stated that, in his experience, in low income areas, some homes have the appearance of being vacant, but they are not actually vacant. Winn testified that 303 Boyd Street, which Windham classified as a nonexistent address, existed and submitted a photograph.
¶11. Winn testified that 582 Welch Street was indeed under construction as Windham noted, but he stated that that someone had been checking the mailbox. Winn further testified that Windham's list had one street address, 113 Harvey Watkins Drive, listed as located in...
To continue reading
Request your trial