REC! FEB 04 2019 a EQUEST H SE TO ELEC sRENCE Comes Representative Jim Glen, by counsel, and respectly requests disqualification of counsel for DJ. Johnson for interference in an eletin in violation of law and or dtet erogation of the demands f this body, n edition, Representative Glenn demands that the vote altered by demand of DJ, Johnson snd his lawyers be removed from te vote count as spite. In suppor ofthis request, nunsel for Glenn would show as follows: “This Commies requested a recount conducted in the usual manner as used in recounts in Kentucky, The Committe is under the mandates of the Kentucky Constitution, which permit recount only “in accordance with law." Kentucky law s enacted bythe legislature, forbids interference in an election by any individual “The Clerk of Daviess County acted in accordance wih aw by providing fr candidates or their designates to observe the recount process on Saturday, February 2, 2019. D. Johnson was resent with counsel. During the recount process, DJ. Johnson and his counsel intentionally, ‘obviously, and as has been ported not only by Representative Glenn’ observers bt by the ned approached and pressured election oficial tale the vote coust an, with particulary. to grant DJ. Johnson an ational vote, “This appears to be a blatant abuse of political power bythe majority party, when the lawyers who ae pad by that party, have worked fr the Governor, and are working a the request ofthe Speaker make the demand o persons in ther political party that the result of «vote count be changed during tat vote count, s0 thet their lent and prefered candidat doesnot lose. KRS 119255 states cearly that it isa violation of law and potentially a criminal act 10attempt o intimidate the clek or any election individual. The integrity of eletions depends on members of all partis acting with honesty, feimess and in accordance with law. When those rules are openly flouted by the majority party and its lawyers, because they want to change the franchise the minority party, the entre political process breaks down, “The vote appears to have been improperly altered as direct and proximate esl ofthe lection interference by Johnson and his attorney A straight ket vote ona ballot, which et Rep. Glenn's ace unmarke, had ben treated in accordance with applicable lw. Witnesses report that Johnson and his awyers demanded that this allot count as a vote for Johnson in itet violation of applicable law. 31 KAR 6:030 “Definition ofa Vote” provides at Section 7, “Straight Pary Voting” (1) Forall voting systems and types of ballots, ifa voter designates achoive to vote straight polite party tieket and also designates vote for an opposing candidate ‘whose name appeats on the ballot or writes inthe name ofan eligible writ ‘andidate in apecifc race, the vote shall be counted forthe opposing candidate or the eligible wrte-in candidate for that specific race and the remaining votes onthe ballot shall be counted forthe straight politcal party [d, In the present case, the County Board of Elections and recount staff appropriately followed the directive ofthe adminirative regulation and accorded the vote to Representative Glenn, as equred by law, When atucked by Johnson's counsel, the Board then altered that vote and gave ‘eto Johnson. ‘Thais an impermissible result, but mor importa, that reflects intentional and effective interference in ancletion by counsel, who are unde legal duty not to meddle with lesion and resis, RS 117.087 “Challenge of en absentee ballot” requires such challenge tobe in writing the ballot at issue was an absentee ballot, that isthe only procedure lawfully availabe to Johnson and his attorneys for challenging the manner in which the ballot was counted. 2KRS 117275(1) pemits a candidate or designated observes to wines the counting of ballots, This statute does nt permit discussion or stack of he count during the process by the candidate ois designates. KRS 11733178) probit interference with he conduct of an ‘lection by any challenger or observer. KRS 119.155(1 provides in pontinent part: “Any person who... unlawUlly teres with the election officers in the discharge oftheir duties, hull be gulty ofa Class D felony.” Johnson and his counsel itetionally interfere withthe lection and recount an ave violated the law in so doing. KRS 119.195(0) expressly hold that persons who “tampers wit or changes the inital ballots is guilty ofa Class D felony. Johnson and his counsel eppear to heve engaged in just such an ston in his case, [Nothing inthe law permits a party or his designates who are observing an lection recount 1 interfere in the processor alter the vote count or the manner in which # recount is taking place. The candidate and designates may “witness” or “observe” the process, as expeesly allowed by law, Johnson and his counsel intentionally violated the integrity ofthe proceedings by forcing a vote count chang and by interfering with the vote count process. [Ata minimum, the allo which was affected by this imecference must be considered spoiled and cannot be counted, In aditon, the counsel found to have engaged in such unlawfil cond should be disquslied from any farther representation of Johnson before this body. When lawyers volt the low their integrity may properly be questioned and the pubic can have 10 confidence in them, This is particularly so where the ations which appar to have taken place are criminal conduct which subject hose commiting them to charges of a Class D felony. For the foregoing resons, Representative Glenn demands the following rie: (1) That the spoiled ballot be removed from the vote count by the Clerk;