Posted 1:51 pm Thursday, June 18, 2009
Winona 'Wet-Dry' Election Results Could Be Reversed
By ADAM RUSSELL
Staff Writer
Election results in the Winona "wet-dry" race could reverse if a court finds that ineligible voters cast ballots against the May 9 alcohol proposition.
Staff Writer
Election results in the Winona "wet-dry" race could reverse if a court finds that ineligible voters cast ballots against the May 9 alcohol proposition.
Winona Mayor Rusty Smith said an investigation by the Winona Police Department is ongoing and that preliminary indications show more than one ineligible voter may have cast a ballot in the election. Smith said he does not know if those individuals voted for or against the proposition but that his main concern is to determine how and why they voted in the first place.
A petition was filed Tuesday with the Smith County District Clerk's office seeking a declaratory judgment on canvassing for city of Winona Proposition 1, said attorney Samantha Trahan, of Gardere Wynne Sewell law firm in Houston.
The petition will be heard in the 7th District Court, according to the District Clerk Lois Rogers. The judge could reverse the 94-94 tie that defeated the local option proposal to allow the legal sale of all alcoholic beverages for off premise consumption, said Texas Secretary of State spokesperson Ashley Burton.
Legalization of alcohol sales for off-premise consumption would have allowed a company to sell beer, wine and spirits to individuals to take home.
Only voters registered within the city limits of Winona could vote on the local option measure, said Smith County Elections Administrator Karen Chaney.
The petition contests the May 9 election results alleging that "one or more individuals who voted in the Winona Proposition 1 Local Option Election did not reside in the city of Winona at the time of the election."
"We are asking that if a voter voted ineligibly because they were not a resident that that vote be taken out of the overall vote and a new canvass would give the correct figure," Ms. Trahan said. "It is possible the court could declare a new result."
The result of the election, a 94-94 split, was officially canvassed by the county May 18 and a recount was conducted 10 days later and confirmed the official numbers. State election code states that local option status does not change unless a majority of votes favor the change.
A statement released by Ms. Trahan's firm said they have reason to believe an ineligible voter who no longer resides within the city limits cast a ballot against the proposition.
Ms. Burton said her office does not handle "matters dealing with residency" and that the ruling will be made in a court of law. She said generally election results "could be challenged in court and it would most likely be up to the judge to determine the next step."
She said two options available to the judge are to call another election or declare any ineligible votes void and call for another canvass.
Ms. Chaney said her office records show voters who cast ballots in the election lived in the city limits. However, she said until the county sends out new voter cards in December the county would not know individuals had moved unless voters volunteer the information.
"The books are fine," she said. "Our judges are supposed to ask every voter if they changed addresses and I have talked to the judge up there and she said they did."
