Local & State Headlines

Dawson votes get lawmakers' attention

Dave Williams

ATLANTA — A challenge by the loser of a 2005 Dawson City Council race should be dismissed because the seat will be up for grabs again in November, a lawyer for the winner told the Georgia Supreme Court Tuesday.

“This case is moot,” said Maurice King Jr., who represents Councilman Charlie Sanders.

The case stems from a November 2005 City Council election in which Sanders was declared the winner by one vote, 100-99, over Carolyn Allen.

After a recount didn’t produce any change in the result, Allen filed a challenge in Terrell County Superior Court, ccontending that illegal voting had occurred.

Judge Harry Altman dismissed the case without a hearing. Following an appeal, the state Supreme Court sent the case back to Terrell County.

During two evidentiary hearings, Allen’s lawyer, Kim Minix, presented evidence that a convicted felon had voted in the race.

That didn’t hold sway with a Thomas County judge who had been appointed to hear the case. The judge ruled that because officials had voided 11 ballots in that election, Allen had to prove that 11 votes were invalid to have the election reversed.

But on Tuesday, Minix argued that only Sanders’ narrow margin of victory should be considered relevant, not the 11 voided ballots.

“This election was won by one vote. One illegal voter voted in that election,” he said.

But Justice Carol Hunstein questioned whether the existence of a one-vote margin -- even if one vote was illegal -- is enough to overturn an election when it’s uncertain which candidate received that vote.

“If you take one vote away from the winner, you can’t give it to the loser,” she said. “You’d have 99 votes each. ... Nobody wins.”

Justice Hugh Thompson said the 11 voided votes must be considered relevant because the illegal vote may have been among them.

“You don’t know if that vote was counted or not,” he said to Minix.

But Minix said that the mere existence of an illegal vote in such a close race should cast enough doubt on the outcome for the justices to overturn the results.

When King’s turn before the court came, he argued that another uncertainty in the 2005 Dawson race -- the presence of a third candidate on the ballot -- would make it unfair for the court to rule in favor of Allen.

The third candidate dropped out of the race before Election Day, but was still listed on the ballot.

The illegal vote conceivably could have been cast for that third candidate, King said.

“It’s not fair to Mr. Sanders to assume that the alleged felon voter voted for him,” the lawyer said.

King also argued that the high court would be setting bad public policy to order a new election for a seat that’s going to be contested anyway in fewer than two months.

“There’s another election in November,” he said. “(Allen) could run and win it.”

Allen did not file qualifying paperwork to run in the November election.

In asking the court to order a rerun of the 2005 election, Minix argued that contesting the 2-year-old race again would be different from waiting until this year’s election.

He noted that Allen would enjoy the status of being an incumbent.

Sanders was the challenger in the November 2005 election, Allen having won the seat over Sanders two months earlier in a special election for a seat vacated when a sitting councilman died in office.

More Headlines>>