This online news website is owned and operated by Becky Watts. The Editor can be reached at 770-468-7583 or at editor(at)PikeCountyTimes(dot)com. Pike County Times is a website for citizens to keep up with local events and stay informed about Pike County government. It began on November 13, 2006 as a watchdog on county government and has turned into an online newspaper.
If you enjoy reading Pike County Times, consider buying an advertisement for your business or sending a donation to support the only free online newspaper in Pike County. Donations can be sent to: The Pike County Times, PO Box 843, Zebulon, Georgia 30295. Click here to donate through PayPal. Thanks for supporting Pike County's only free online newspaper!
By Editor Becky Watts
ZEBULON - On Monday, December 17, 2012, Pike County Superior Court heard the case of Robert E. Adams, Jr., Patricia A. Beckham, Martha J. O'Neal, and Betty Willis vs. The Pike County School District, Lynn Brandenburg in his official capacity as the Pike County Elections Superintendent, and Walter James "Jim" Brooks. M. Michael Kendall of The Kendall Law Firm, P.C. in Griffin spoke on the behalf of the Plaintiffs, W. Brent Hyde of Hall, Booth, Smith & Slover, P.C. from Tifton represented the Pike County Board of Education, Robert L. Morton of Morton, Morton & Associate L.L.C. in Zebulon spoke on the behalf of Elections Superintendent Lynn Brandenburg, and Walter James "Jim" Brooks was present on his own behalf.
This case was filed on October 4, 2012 to contest the School Board District elections that took place on July 31 and August 21, 2012. The complaint says that Pike County did not complete 2012 redistricting prior to the 2012 Primary Election and that the election under the old voting district lines should be declared null and void with a new election being held to determine the winners of the Board of Education races.
Background
This is not the first challenge to the July Election and Run Off. There were two complaints and counterclaims including requests for attorney's fees that were dismissed by a mutual agreement of both parties on September 24, 2012. Readers can read about the first two lawsuits and read about similar county predicaments based on voting district lines by reading "Another Lawsuit Filed on Board of Education District Elections" that was written on October 9, 2012. Click here to read.
The current complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by Mr. Kendall in Pike County Superior Court on October 4, 2012. It cited constitutional objections of "one person, one vote" and the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit alleges that Walter James "Jim" Brooks was elected to the District 4 Board of Education (BOE) seat when he actually lives in District 5 because candidates were allowed to qualify under the 2002 district voting maps instead of the current voting maps based on the 2010 census that were approved by the Georgia State Legislature this year. This lawsuit alleges that since the July and August 2012 Elections were conducted under the 2002 voting district map, the school board district races held on July 31, 2012 and August 21, 2012 are illegal.
The Plaintiffs asked the Court to disqualify Jim Brooks as the winner of the Board of Education District 4 race and that the court prevent Mr. Brooks from taking the oath of office to serve as representative because he does not reside in District 4 under the new maps. They also ask that the July 2012 Primary and August 2012 Run Off Elections be declared null and void and that Pike County be required to hold a completely new election under the new voting district map. Click here to read the lawsuit that was filed on October 4, 2012.
Timelines and Deadlines
The October 9, 2012 Pike County Times article found here explains in depth for readers from when the districts were created and approved through the issuance of a pre-clearance approval letter from the Department of Justice advising that the submitted district lines were acceptable. It also explains why the Department of Justice can freeze voting lines until it gives federal approval on new voting lines in the state of Georgia. The final result is that the election was held on July 31, 2012 under the old voting district lines.
Reasons for Pike County's decision included the permission being given so close to the election, and Pike County Times has researched similar cases and outcomes around the state including Bibb County, which had a court case that was filed in time to prevent the July 31, 2012 election from occurring until the new voter district lines could be drawn, and Chatham County, which asked for and received permission from the Secretary of State to go with their old voting district lines. by Click here to read October 9, 2012 article.
Current Court Case
Judge William H. Ison heard this case as presented by Mr. Kendall on one side of the room and Mr. Morton, Mr. Brooks, and Mr. Hyde on the other. There were many in attendance who listened to the outcome of this case that was filed on October 4, 2012 and continued from last month's November court date. There were a variety of ways that this court case could have ended. It could have been continued, dismissed or ended up in jury trial. Mr. Morton and Mr. Hyde did the talking and presenting of their cases for the county and school district with Mr. Brooks sitting quietly between the two of them.
Discussion went back and forth for a little over forty minutes in the 10:00 hearing with attorneys occasionally interrupting each other to present or clarify a point for the judge as well as answering various questions that the judge asked them. Jurisdiction to hear the case and time limits to challenge an election according to state rules as well as precedence set by other court cases were the topic of discussion during the hearing.
Mr. Kendall argued that there was a separate action against Mr. Brooks which challenged Mr. Brooks' right to hold office because he does not live in the district in which he will be serving if he is allowed to take the oath of office as the District 4 representative. This Writ of Quo Warranto, according to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com, is a legal proceeding based on old English law in which someone can challenge an individual's right to hold office. It was compared to a Writ of Habeas Corpus and the extraordinary measures that are required when this procedure is undertaken. Mr. Kendall argued that this Quo Warranto applied only to Mr. Brooks and not to the county and school board even though it was part of the court case against all three entities.
Mr. Kendall said in Court that it was "up to him [Mr. Brooks] to defend his election" and argued that his clients had won this argument by default because Mr. Brooks had not filed an answer to the Quo Warranto with the court. Mr. Kendall argued that this is "a perfectly legitimate vehicle to challenge an elected official's ability to hold office" and said that even though our Legislature has provided another way for citizens or a defeated candidate to challenge an election, the Legislature had not specifically outlawed this method of challenge.
Several cases were presented by both sides including a 2009 Supreme Court case that resulted in a dismissal of a Writ of Quo Warranto because pre-clearance or permission was not specifically given by the court to file the Quo Warranto action. Judge Ison dismissed the Quo Warranto action because the Plaintiffs and their attorney did not seek permission from the Court to file this action. He also ruled that there was another, adequate way to challenge the election.
Mr. Kendall argued that the school district's motion to dismiss on this action did not apply because they were not specifically named in the Quo Warranto action, but the judge disagreed. The judge also advised that the Supreme Court of Georgia has indicated that claims for Quo Warranto are not favored as a way to challenge a candidate's eligibility for office and that a Quo Warranto should not be considered by the Court if there is another, adequate way to make an election challenge.
In this case, there was another way to challenge a candidate's eligibility for office. Mr. Morton brought this before the court at this hearing. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-6 (Georgia Code) says that: "Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for any such candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the superintendent giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which the candidate is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the superintendent shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefore and shall advise the candidate that he or she is setting a hearing on the matter and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing."
Mr. Kendall repeatedly said during the proceedings that this lawsuit was not a challenge to an election contest, but Judge Ison disagreed saying, "…If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck." The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the court has no jurisdiction to hear a challenge to an election if it is not timely filed according to state law. Final discussion on the case boiled down to arguments being a moot point because the case is essentially trying to challenge an election rather than a candidate even though Mr. Brooks does not live in the current voting district according to the 2012 voting district lines that were not a part of the 2012 Election and Run Off.
The judge then ruled on the jurisdiction of the court to hear a challenge to this election from the Plaintiffs because there are specific timelines that must be followed for an individual or group to challenge the results of an election. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-524(a) says that a petition to contest a primary or election must be filed "within five days after the official consolidation of the returns of that particular office or question and certification by the election official". According to that state requirement, the complaint about the July 31, 2012 should have been filed by August 8, 2012 because the election results were certified by Elections Superintendent Lynn Brandenburg on August 3, 2012. This election challenge to both the Primary and Run Off was filed with Pike County Superior Court on October 4, 2012. Judge Ison ruled that this complaint was not filed according to the rules and timelines written in Georgia State Law and dismissed the entire case on Demember 17, 2012.
More detailed information about the old and new voting district lines, the Department of Justice's pre-clearance for our county's new voting district lines, and the two previous court cases can be found by clicking here.