By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
Though Mona election officials re-surveyed the votes in
the recent election and recounted some of them, the out-come
did not change.
Michael Pay, a write-in candidate in Mona, challenged the
election results and Fourth District Judge Donald Eyre Jr.,
in a hearing held before him, mandated that the vote be
re-counted.
Pay filed the challenge through Fourth District Court and
the hearing was held on Dec. 7 before Judge Eyre.
The vote reevaluation was held on Tuesday, Dec. 11.
At the conclusion, of the reevaluation, David Leavitt,
Juab County Attorney, prepared a statement: "I recommend the
following results be accepted by the canvassing board (the
city council), having been tallied and evaluated pursuant to
the standing order of the Fourth Judicial District Court:
Newton&emdash;108; Schnurr&emdash;122; Newell&emdash;177;
Pay&emdash;119."
The statement was attested to by Leavitt, and Phil
Lowery, attorney for Mona. Both attorneys were present for
the reevaluation.
"When the votes were counted the first time," said
Leavitt, "those votes for write-in candidates where there
was a check by the name on the printed ballot and also the
name of a write-in candidate written for the same seat,
election judges opted to count the check rather than the
name written in."
However, state law states that, when this occurs, the
vote should be counted for the write-in candidate rather
than for the printed ballot candidate because, the act of
writing the name is assumed to be intent to vote for that
candidate.
"When you find out what happened on election day in Mona,
the reason votes were counted as they were makes perfect
sense," said Leavitt.
Inside the voting booths, where a sample ballot is
posted, someone had written the name of the write-in
candidates on the sample ballot. What election judges in
Mona thought was that many voters tried to make their ballot
match the sample ballot and then voted for a candidate on
the printed form.
Nevertheless, state election law requires that when two
or three votes are made on the same ballot, the write-in
candidate wins the vote and the check-mark by the
candidate's name printed on the ballot is discarded.
"In this case, it seemed clear that more counts were
given to the write-in than was the intent of the voters,"
said Leavitt. "Nevertheless, the law is clear in stating
that the write-in candidate is given the benefit of the
doubt even though it seemed that voters were trying to make
their ballots match the samples posted."
The act of writing the name of the write-in candidate on
the sample ballot, however, is a violation of state election
law. Leavitt said the printed sample ballot should never,
according to state statute, be tampered with in anyway.
Had the outcome of the election been changed by the
recount, said Leavitt, it is probable that the candidate
whose name was on the printed ballot would have challenged
the results. In that case, it would have been necessary to
hold another election.
"In the end, Mr. Schnurr still won the election using a
standard that was clearly in the favor of the write-in
candidate," said Leavitt.
The experience has been an expensive one for the
community because the judges of election and attorney fees
were paid by the city. It has also been a learning
experience and, in the future, the sample ballot will be
carefully checked throughout the day to make certain it has
not been tampered with agreed council members.
"I will now submit the results and the results of the
election canvass to Olene Walker, vice-governor, and the
canvassing can be closed," said Nila Keyte, city
recorder.
|
