New Caddo sheriff's election moves forward; La. Supreme Court doesn't hear appeal

SHREVEPORT, La. -- The race for Caddo Parish's next sheriff can move forward now that the Louisiana Supreme Court has decided not to hear an appeal of lower court rulings ordering a new election. 

Four members of the state's high court made the decision Thursday, saying they were denying the writ application -- or application for an appeal -- filed by candidate Henry Whitehorn. Two of the the justices dissented from majority and would have granted the appeal and set the case for oral arguments. One justice recused himself from the vote.

Whitehorn wanted the Supreme Court to reconsider rulings by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal and Caddo District Court, both of which ordered a new election for him and candidate John Nickelson. 

Whitehorn came out on top by one vote in the November runoff election. Nickelson contested the results, citing voting irregularities. 

A Caddo judge and a majority panel of the appellate court agreed. At least 11 voting irregularities were cited in their rulings. 

Nickelson released a brief statement tonight on his Facebook page, saying, "The Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision this evening is a victory for democracy in Caddo Parish and throughout Louisiana. My team and I stood up for election integrity, and justice prevailed. The trial court, appellate court, and Supreme Court all agree that a new election is necessary. We will continue our fight to ensure a free and fair election for Caddo Parish sheriff."

In a statement released to media, Whitehorn accused Nickelson of getting the election overturned by "misleading" Caddo Parish residents about some of the voting irregularities, even though it was those irregularities and more cited by judges on three levels as a reason a new election is needed. 

"Now, the people of Caddo Parish have a job to do. We must send the message that we will not sit back and allow anyone to overturn an election simply because they are unhappy with the results.  I was always taught that the person with the most votes wins, even if that’s by a thousand votes or by one vote. One vote does matter, and he should not be given a redo just because he only lost by one," Whitehorn said in his statement. 

La. Supreme Court Justice Scott Crichton, of Shreveport, said he joined the four other justices in denying the appeal. In his viewpoint, the lower courts reached the correct decision in voiding the election results and ordering a new election. 

But Crichton said he put his reasons in writing to express his "grave concerns" about the integrity of the election process that was "laid bare in the trial contesting these results." Election officials’ testimony at the trial revealed a" substantial gap in compliance with statutory election code procedures."

Registrar of Voters Dale Sibley testified that absentee ballots lacking signatures by either the voter or a witness, as required by law, “slipped through the cracks” and were nevertheless counted. "Signatures by the voter and witness can never be—and are not—mere ornaments. By verifying the identity of the elector, their purpose is to prevent abuses and assure accuracy in absentee voting. The signatures are “sacramental to the reasonable objectives of the absentee voting law," Crichton said. 

"Ballots failing to comply with the signature requirements should have been disqualified, yet the trial court found five that were not. In an election separated by a single vote, this cannot be deemed harmless," he added. 

Crichton concluded neither candidate is to blame. 

"When a court is presented with proven errors, even when no candidate is responsible for those errors, it is compelled to act and uphold our Election Code," Crichton said. Citing a previous court ruling of Adkins versus Huckabay, Crichton added, "(“A tolerance of deviations from legal requirements could lead to a manipulation of elections, and affect the integrity of an election and the sanctity of the ballot.”). In this case, a new election will ensure confidence in the final outcome."

Justice James Genovese, who supported the majority's denial of the appeal, wrote that he felt compelled to elaborate on his vote: "In a two-candidate race, the mere fact that one candidate ends up with one or more votes than his opponent, without regard or consideration given to proven fraud and unqualified voters casting ballots, does not equate to a just and fair election under our law and jurisprudence. A just and fair election can only be had when one candidate wins by a majority vote of qualified electors. In this case, the following pertinent facts were clearly and factually established by the evidence at the trial court level: a. Initially and after recount, this runoff election was decided by a one-vote margin; and b. There were eleven illegal votes cast. Upon consideration of these critical facts, the trial court then made a finding of fact that it is virtually impossible for there to be an accurate tabulation of the votes received by either candidate."

Genovese noted that 2nd Circuit Court Judge Shonda Stone said in her dissent of their ruling, “There can be no democracy without free and fair elections.”

"I agree; however, this election was not a free and fair election," Genovese said. "A one-vote margin of victory supported by clearly established eleven unqualified voters cannot be said to constitute a fair election. What is fair and essential to the candidates and the electorate, and to preserve election integrity, is to have a new runoff election with a winner decided by qualified voters. This is precisely what the trial court ordered and what was affirmed by the court of appeal. It is upon this rationale, and this rationale only, that I cast my vote to concur in the denial of this writ and assign these reasons."

Justice C.J. Weimer said he voted to grant the appeal and docket the case for oral arguments. 

"A determination of who will serve as the chief law enforcement officer in Caddo Parish following an election with a one vote margin of victory (which was re-affirmed after a recount), and a court of appeal decision with a one vote margin, which includes a concurrence, deserves this court’s full attention with the litigants appearing before this court to publicly plead their positions in person," Weimer wrote. 

Justice Jefferson D. Hughes III recused from the vote. No reason was given. 

The new runoff election is expected to be placed on the March 23 ballot.