Stuart v. Anderson County Election Com'n
| Decision Date | 13 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. E2006-02209-COA-R3-CV.,E2006-02209-COA-R3-CV. |
| Citation | 237 S.W.3d 297 |
| Parties | David A. STUART v. ANDERSON COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
David A. Stuart, pro se Appellant.
William A. Reeves, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Anderson County Election Commission.
Robert W. Knolton, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Don A. Layton.
This is an election contest brought by David A. Stuart ("Plaintiff") who lost the August 2006 general election for Anderson County General Sessions Court Judge, Division I. Plaintiff lost the election by a margin of 119 votes. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges various irregularities in how the election was conducted, that these irregularities renders certain votes illegal, and that the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin of victory. Plaintiff seeks to have the election declared invalid. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint after finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiff was a candidate for Anderson County General Sessions Court Judge, Division I, in the August 2006 general election. The opposing candidate was Don A. Layton ("Layton"). Layton received 6,966 votes, and Plaintiff received 6,847 votes. Thus, Plaintiff lost by a margin of 119 votes. Plaintiff timely filed this lawsuit contesting the election. The issues in this appeal involve whether Plaintiff's complaint states a cause of action. Due to the nature of the issues, we, reluctantly, must quote much of the complaint in this case. The complaint provides:
At all times material hereto, the following Statute of the State of Tennessee, as set forth in the Tennessee Code Annotated, was in full force and effect:
2-7-118. Time limit for voting — Removal of voter. — (a) No voter who is voting without assistance may remain in a voting machine booth or occupy a voting compartment for more than five (5) minutes if other voters are waiting or more than ten (10) minutes in any event.
(b) If a voter refuses to leave after such, time elapses, the officer of elections shall have the voter removed.
Plaintiff alleges that large numbers of voters exceeded the time limits set forth in the above-quoted statute, and that the officer of elections deliberately took no action whatsoever to enforce the requirements of the statute. Plaintiff alleges that the average length of time spent by each voter in the booth on election day was in excess of six and eight-tenths (6.8) minutes, that many voters took between five (5) and ten (10) minutes while other voters were waiting, and that many voters took over ten (10) minutes to vote while other voters were waiting. Plaintiff also alleges, on information and belief, that the time limits set forth in the above-quoted statute were exceeded on occasions throughout the early voting period.
Plaintiff alleges that during the time voters were exceeding the time limits, other people were waiting to vote, and that many of these people quit waiting and left the precinct before voting, because of the illegal delay caused by the failure of the officer of elections to enforce the time limits prescribed by law. A substantial number of prospective voters who left without voting had received ballot applications which were never presented to the machine operator, and they left when the time limits were being violated. Other substantial numbers of prospective voters left the ballot application line without receiving their ballot applications after waiting in line for excessive time periods, and they left when the time limits were being violated.
In addition to the foregoing allegations pertaining to the disenfranchisement of certain voters due to violations of the time limits, plaintiff alleges that all votes which exceeded the time limits for voting are illegal votes and should be disregarded.
In addition to the foregoing, plaintiff alleges that voting machines were used at every precinct in the election in question, that the Highland View Precinct is one of the precincts involved in the conduct of the election, and that none of the machines being used at that precinct became out of order during the election. At the Highland View Precinct, at some point during the day, paper ballots were issued to people waiting to vote, and they were permitted to vote by paper ballot rather than machine, in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 2-7-108, 2-7-119 and 2-9-109, and other provisions of law, and without the approval of the administrator of election or the filing of a written report of the circumstances causing the use of paper ballots, as required by Tenn.Code Ann. § 2-7-108. This violation is compounded by the fact that earlier in the day, people waiting to vote were not issued paper ballots, and some of those people left without voting rather than wait while other voters were exceeding the time limits previously described. Plaintiff alleges that all paper ballots in the Highland View Precinct or in any other precinct which were issued in the absence of a machine out of order or other legal justification are illegal votes and should be disregarded.
In addition to the foregoing, plaintiff alleges that in some instances in the South Clinton Precinct on election day, the voting registrars did not require voters to present any evidence of identification for examination and comparison, as required by Tenn.Code Ann. § 2-7-112. Plaintiff therefore alleges that all votes cast without the required presentation, examination and comparison of evidence of identification in the South Clinton Precinct or in any other precinct are illegal votes and should be disregarded.
As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing violations, or any of them, plaintiff alleges that fraud or illegality so permeated the conduct of the election as to render it incurably uncertain. With a margin of less than one percent (1%), comprised of 119 votes, separating the plaintiff and the defendant, Layton, with the average time spent by each voter on election day being in excess of six and eight-tenths (6.8) minutes, with many voters on election day having spent in excess of ten (10) minutes voting, with numerous registered qualified voters having left the polling place without voting while others were exceeding the time limits, with substantial numbers of illegal paper ballots having been allowed to be cast rather than machine votes as required by law, and with voters not being required to present evidence of identification for examination and comparison at the polling place as required by law, the election is incurably uncertain. Additionally, the violations of the election law described herein compel the conclusion that the election did not express the free and fair will of the qualified voters with regard to the office in question.
* * *
Your plaintiff would respectfully request that, in connection with this election contest, this Honorable Court issue an Order, pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 2-8-108, providing access to all paper ballots cast in the election, so that the validity or invalidity of said ballots can be ascertained. Additionally, your plaintiff would request this Honorable Court to issue an Order requiring the Anderson County Election Commission to preserve all records and electronic data pertaining to the election in question as evidence for examination in this cause.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, PLAINTIFF REQUESTS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:
* * *
That this Honorable Court Enter an appropriate Order, providing that the packages of paper ballots cast in the election be opened and examined for the purpose to (sic) determining that they were counted correctly, and to verify that they are otherwise lawful and valid in all respects....
That this Honorable Court find and determine that every person who received a ballot application and left while the time limits were being violated should have been permitted to vote, and that there are more voters in that category than the margin of victory in this election.
That this Honorable Court find and determine that every vote cast more than 10 minutes after a voter voting without assistance entered the booth or voting compartment is an illegal vote, and that there are more votes in that category than the margin of victory in this election.
That this Honorable Court find and determine that every vote cast between five (5) and 10 minutes after a voter voting without assistance entered the booth or voting compartment, while other prospective voters were waiting, is an illegal vote, and that there are more votes in that category than the margin of victory in this election.
That this Honorable Court find and determine that every person who waited in line at a voting precinct while the time limits were being violated should have been permitted to vote, and that there are more persons in this category than in the margin of victory in this election.
That this Honorable Court find and determine that all paper ballots issued at voting places while machines were not out of order or for other legal reason are illegal votes, and that there are more votes in this category than the margin of victory in this election.
That this Honorable Court find and determine that the failure to require presentation of evidence of identification for examination to the registrar at the South Clinton Precinct or any other precinct rendered the subsequently cast vote an illegal vote, and that there are more such votes in this category than in the margin of victory in this election.
That after determining the number of persons illegally denied their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whalum v. Shelby Cnty. Election Comm'n
...remedy in this second situation, if the contestant is successful in court, is to order a new election.Stuart v. Anderson Cnty. Election Comm'n, 237 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). Here, Reverend Whalum seeks to declare the election void, rather than be declared the winner of the elec......
-
Parsons v. Huffman, No. W2007-00327-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 6/3/2008)
..."largely technical violations" rather than misconduct by the election officials. Id. at 723. In Stuart v. Anderson County Election Comm'n, 237 S.W.3d 297, 300 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007), a plaintiff alleged, among other things, that because voters took too long at the voting machines, "substanti......
-
Barrett v. Giles Cnty.
...remedy in this second situation, if the contestant is successful in court, is to order a new election.v. Anderson County Election Comm'n, 237 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). Barrett has sought relief related to both types of election contest claims. First, he seeks to be declared the......
-
King v. Sevier County Election Com'n
..."fraud or illegality," since this is the correctly stated test. 8. Specifically, as later summarized in Stuart v. Anderson County Election Comm'n, 237 S.W.3d 297, 305 (Tenn.Ct.App.2007), the allegations in Forbes included: "(1) the improper utilization of paper ballots in conjunction with v......