(April 21, 2016) Pending any changes because of notification procedures from the Board of Elections Supervisors, Pocomoke City will hold either a new election or a “re-vote” on May 31.
Both Pocomoke City Mayor Bruce Morrison and City Attorney/City Manager Ernie Crofoot confirmed the new date, but each was quick to add it’s not really their call.
“We empower the Board of Election Supervisors to make these decisions,” Morrison said.
According to code, the Board of Supervisors of Elections “shall be in charge of registrations of voters, nominations and all city elections.”
When asked about the new date, Board President John Haynie replied via email: “The mayor will be letting everyone know at the meeting tonight.”
However, the meeting came and went without an announcement from Morrison. When approached after the meeting, Morrison relayed the information he said he had, which is a date of May 31, which was echoed by Crofoot.
Both said the date could change.
The section of the city’s charter governing elections is unclear on the subject. First, the charter requires advertisement in public places and in at least one newspaper of general circulation four weeks in advance of the election. Also, after two weeks, the code requires the board to publish additional notice to close nominations.
It is uncertain at this point if new nominations beyond incumbent George Tasker and challenger Sheila Nelson will be accepted. Morrison and Crofoot said they didn’t know, board counsel Bill Hudson said there was nothing in the charter that specifies what rules apply.
“There was a filing deadline for would-be candidates” for the previous, disputed election Hudson said, and added his opinion that the original filing date for the first election should still apply.
A machine malfunction is being blamed for a disparity of votes between the number of individuals who participated in the election and the number of votes cast.
Tasker, for his part, was adamant that this was not a new election, but a “re-vote,” to be decided between the existing candidates. However, this process is described nowhere in the charter.
Special elections are provided for and are to be conducted “in the same manner, and as far as practicable, as regular city elections” in the charter, which would allow for an entirely new election.
“There is a provision for a recount, but unfortunately the technology used didn’t create a record that could be recounted,” Hudson said. Paper ballots, or voting machines equipped with “paper packs” could have avoided this issue, he continued.
The charter specifically states “The candidate or candidates for Councilman with the highest number of votes in each general election shall be declared elected as Councilman,” and requires elections to be certified 12 hours from the time the polls are closed.
“It’s unprecedented and whoever drafted the charter didn’t envision this situation. The Board of Election Supervisors are trying to craft the best resolution they can,” Hudson said.
And it may yet not be over.
“A candidate or voter would have standing to seek judicial review of the refusal to certify. I assume if a candidate or voter didn’t agree the board had the authority to do what they are now doing they can seek judicial review,” Hudson said.