Anda di halaman 1dari 5
[RECEIVED J FEB 04 2088 og Cs Bu odd. ‘cory 3. Skolnick Nene soa 54) 0.581.100) etamacaran com February 4,2019 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL, ‘Chairman, Election Contes Board ‘fo Chiet Clerk Kentucky House of Represntatives 700 Capitol Averue Capitol, Room 304 Frankfort, KY 40601 Re: DJ Jokison’s Response to Jim Glenn's Request for Response to Election Interference Dea Ms. Chairman DI Johnson submis this Response to Jim Glen's Request for Response to Election Interference that hie ators filed with the Election Contest Board this morning "Request Indroduction “The accusations contained in Mr Glen's Request ar fle and seuilous, Neier Mr Glenn’s legal counsel, who filed the Request, noe Mr. Glenn himself, attended the February 2, 2019 recount. (Eventhough they had requested, and were granted, persion to attend by tis Bourd). The Request doc not attach any affidavits or other evidence from the Daviess County [ection Board (the “Cousty Boar”), the body who supposedly scoumbod to nterforenae. In fact, Mr, Glen filed his Request without even waiting for Daviess County to submit its eeount report to this Board “The actual fcts ar explained in more detail below. By way of summary $00 Wet re Sr | 3 ae | Lado 0202585 | 502598500 | estrowmtncom "Siz nc, ray, Oho, Peron, Tenens, ges ad We Was Chairman, Election Contes Board February 4, 2019 Page 2 ‘Mr, Johnson and his lawyers behaved appropriately atthe recount, Peviod. ‘The County Board—voting unanimously and consuling wth its ownatomey applied regulation brought to its atestion tat it ready possessed. That regulation applied objectively, confined a vote for Mr ohnson that had previously been counted for Mr. Johnson ding the criginl machine coun, The County Board is « bi-partisan board, so both Demoeats and Republicans voted unanimously to confi the vote for Mr Johnson Isis ao surprising ‘hat the oter side disputes what should happen inthis election contest. ‘But Mr Johnson finds it ufortunate that Mr. Glenn's ling, ike several others befre itis ot an honest dispute. Mr. Glen's filing seeks to impugn Me. Johnson, his legal course, the County Board, other elected officals, and the House of Representatives ise Simply stated there sno place for his behavior. Mr. Glenn should withdraw his Reaues ‘What Actually Happened The County Boal conducted itself transparently and professionally throughout the February 2 recount, Itwebomed observers, inching the public an mea, during the entety of the recount, The County Board even provided observers with copies ofthe approved recount procedures, 31 KAR 6:03 and KRS 117.087. Mr. Richa House, Chie Depry let, willingly answered inquire rom any person. Mr. Johnson, and his egal counsel, observed the election recount, But inno way dd hey interfere with the process. Chief Deputy Sherif Smith, « Democratic member of the County Board, and one of m .¢ Sherf's Department representatives in stendance, certainly would have objected to and prevented such behavior. And despite the presence of multiple media ‘members, none reported any alleged misconduct sco Wit ore Sra a ee | ade, KY $092595 | 2.5880 | ‘Stearn ino kay, Oh, ea, Tenn Tay ghd Wed Wane (Chairman, Election Contest Board February 4, 2019, Page3 “The County Board followed its published and approved recount procedures. It divided the election recount staf into four groups, each composed of two Republicans and two Democrats All four members ofthe group examined each individual ballot to determine which candidate, if any, should receive that vet. If disagreement occurred, the entire County Board met to discuss the issue and vote on the ballot, Each time this occurred, Mr. House would then explain each Aecision by the County Board to observers. (One of the ballots reviewed by the County Board had originally been counted in the [November 6, 2018 mactine total for Mr. Johnson. The voter casting that bullot—the one challenged in the Request—marked the box forthe straight Republican ticket At first the County Board incorrectly interpreted the voter's intent as a no-voe, rather than ‘vote for Mr. Johnson, in violation of the plain langusge of the applicable regulation. The regulation, Section 4 0f31 KAR 6:030, holds that: horizonal lin “shall constitute vote” where ‘portion of [the line] intersects two (2) points on the oval or arrow next to the candidate's name ‘or the question choice” an “does not intersect another oval or arrow at any two (2) points.” Mr. Glenn does not contest that this occured here. ‘Mr, Johnson's storey, fle heating the County Board's initial reaction fo this ballot, rerely advised the Daviess County Attomey ofthe regulation, ‘Tis is because the ballot in