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 - Today was the first day of court in the main courtroom of the Pike County Courthouse. The courtroom was beautiful and the sound was much better as the Judge and those involved in the proceedings used the new sound system that had been installed with the restoration of the courthouse. The case of Robert E. Adams, Jr. v. Jim Brooks was heard by Judge Tommy Hankinson. There was a short hearing during the morning session and the case was argued in its entirety when court came back into session after lunch this afternoon.
Original Lawsuit
This original 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.
A 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 also 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 about the lawsuit that was filed on October 4, 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 on December 17, 2012. Judge William H. Ison presided over the case. 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.
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 December 17, 2012. Click here to read about the hearing where this case was ultimately dismissed on December 17, 2012.
Original Writ of Quo Warranto
During the December 17, 2012 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 during the December 17, 2012 hearing, 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.
This was dismissed in the December 17, 2012 hearing along with the original case even though Mr. Brooks had not filed an answer to the Quo Warranto because the Plaintiff's had not gotten permission from the court to file a Quo Warranto. But it was also said during this court session that 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 which tied the Quo Warranto to the first case that was being dismissed because it was not filed in a timely manner. 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 original case including the Writ of Quo Warranto was dismissed. This case has been appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia.
Current Writ of Quo Warranto Complaint
Mr. Jim Brooks was represented in court today by Lauren A. King of Stockbridge and L. Scott Mayfield of Barnesville on the behalf of Smith, Welch, Webb, and White LLC. He retained this firm for representation after being served the current Quo Warranto on February 26, 2013. Ms. King asked for a continuance during a pre-hearing in the morning session and Mr. Kendall, who represented Mr. Adams, contested a continuance based on the 10 day requirement for a decision based on the requirements for a Quo Warranto action based on 1863 law that even he contended was a contradiction to the current Civil Practice Act that requires an allowance of 30 days for an answer to a claim.
Mr. Kendall argued that the Quo Warranto requires a hearing within 10 days because the challenge to a person who is holding public office is not one to be taken lightly because this person may potentially be holding office illegally and may potentially making decisions in an illegal manner based on eligibility for office. He cited the 1998 case of Anderson v. Flake (click here to read) and continually said that an answer was required to be filed on this action.
Judge Hankinson was advised by Mr. Brooks' attorney that since Mr. Brooks is a sitting member of the Pike County Board of Education, he was under the impression that the Board of Education would provide counsel for him until he was advised on March 1, 2013 that the Board of Education would not represent him. So he retained the firm of Smith, Welch, Webb, and White LLC yesterday afternoon on this case. Mr. Mayfield advised that he could file an answer to deny the Quo Warranto today but asked the court for the opportunity to research this case and file an answer within the 30 days as is required by the Civil Practice Act. It was argued that the 1863 Quo Warranto has been modified by the Civil Practice Act.
Judge Hankinson's Ruling
Judge Hankinson said that it is a serious matter to set aside an election and that his biggest concern is giving all parties a fair hearing on this case. Judge Hankinson said that based on the Anderson v. Flake case that was presented by Mr. Kendall, he was going to allow the defense to have 30 days to answer this case. Mr. Mayfield advised that he will file the required response and indicated that he may also file for a stay with the Supreme Court on this case since the original case on redistricting has been appealed to the Supreme Court. [Note from the Editor: According to the Georgia Supreme Court website, Adams et al. v. Pike County School District et al. has a docket date of March 8, 2013 and is on the calendar for May of 2013. No date for oral arguments has been set at this time.] Click here to view Supreme Court information on this case.
Mr. Kendall then asked for the case to be streamlined saying that a six month discovery on this case plus the 30 days to answer the complaint would aggrieve those under current representation because they have the right to elect the person of their choice. Mr. Kendall said that the question of whether or not to hold a new election would have to be addressed but also said that this position might be filled without a new election.
Judge Hankinson advised that Mr. Brooks would have 30 days to reply from February 26, 2013, which is the date of service on the Writ of Quo Warranto, based on the ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court in Anderson v. Flake. He then advised that both sides that they should prepare a list of depositions that would need to be taken in this case and that he will consider a shortened response time but wants to be fair to both sides in the case.
Pike County Times will continue to follow this case as it develops.