Sealed inside metal ballot boxes at the Leflore County Courthouse lies the identity of the true Democratic nominee for District 3 supervisor.
The answer will be drawn out during a trial beginning Thursday that features more than 200 potential witnesses.
Right now, Anjuan Brown is on the Nov. 8 general election ballot to face independent Charles McCain Jr. But one-term incumbent Preston Ratliff is alleging fraud in the Aug. 2 primary, and the judge could declare him the winner or call for a new election.
The losing side can appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Circuit Judge James Chaney of Vicksburg said Monday he fully expects that to happen.
Both sides met with the judge for a pre-trial hearing at the courthouse.
Ratliff’s lawyer, Willie Perkins of Greenwood, alleged that Brown and his campaign workers recruited voters with drug and alcohol problems, took them to the courthouse and told them to vote absentee by falsely claiming they intended to be out of town on Election Day.
It was a “fraudulent and willful” violation of voting laws, Perkins said.
Brown’s legal team of Lee Abraham of Greenwood and Sam Begley of Jackson argued that Brown simply won the election and Ratliff is trying to breathe life into a dead campaign.
Abraham said there’s no proof of fraud. Also, voters should not be called to court to explain why they voted, which could discourage them from voting in the future, he said.
“There’s no basis (to the challenge). It’s purely and dangerously a fishing expedition to try to come up with ... enough votes to offset Mr. Ratliff’s loss,” he said.
Ratliff had led by 41 votes following the machine count, but he lost by 89 votes, 607 to 518, after the Leflore County Election Commission and Democratic officials counted absentee ballots.
The District 3 supervisor contested the election. One branch of the Democratic Executive Committee overturned the initial ruling and named Ratliff the winner; another upheld Brown as the nominee.
Then the Mississippi Supreme Court appointed Chaney as a special judge to hear the case. On Sept. 27, Chaney ordered Brown’s name to be placed on the ballot.
Ratliff appealed. He alleges more than 150 absentee voters committed fraud because they never intended to be out of Leflore County on Aug. 2. He also claims more than 50 additional ballots should be tossed because of other irregularities.
A trial begins at 9 a.m. Thursday at the Leflore County courthouse.
The judge ordered that the first witness be Circuit Clerk Trey Evans to explain voting procedures.
Then Ratliff will present his case. There are more than 200 names on the list of possible witnesses, although Chaney encouraged the lawyers to pare that down. The judge said he plans to go late Thursday night and reconvene early Friday morning if necessary to finish before Saturday.
Chaney said he isn’t too concerned about the conflicting decisions made by the warring factions of the Democratic Executive Committee but is more interested in looking for mistakes or fraud among the absentee ballots. Evans opened one ballot box Monday at Chaney’s request to familiarize the judge with its contents.
A meeting was set for 9 a.m. today to get the ballots in alphabetical order and match the applications to vote absentee with the ballots. The circuit clerk’s office will be in charge with attorneys from both sides or their representatives required to be present. Chaney ordered the meeting to speed up the ballot counting during the trial.
Chaney and Perkins had a memorable exchange Monday morning about the possibility that voters subpoenaed in the case could be forced to admit to lying when they swore they would be gone from the county on Election Day. That could possibly violate their Fifth Amendment right of freedom from self-incrimination.
The judge could refer such voters to the district attorney to be prosecuted.
Perkins had mentioned a voter, Alice Ray Spruill, who said she never intended to be out of town on Election Day because that’s the day she gets her check. She made that statement under oath before the Democratic Executive Committee on Sept. 7.
“Did you tell that lady that she could be prosecuted?” Chaney said.
“No, sir. I didn’t,” Perkins replied.
“Do you want her prosecuted?”
“No, sir. I don’t.”
“Why?”
“Because she was misled by Brown’s supporters and workers to engage in a wrongful and illegal casting of an absentee ballot. It was a concerted effort by the Brown campaign to do just that.”
“If she went along with it and signed an affidavit that she knew was false, isn’t she one of the ones I need to refer to the district attorney’s office to be prosecuted?”
“Your honor, you have to do that. I don’t want to.”
Brown’s lawyers tried to get the judge to prevent such absentee voters from being called to testify, but Chaney said he would allow it for now, pending consideration of case law. He asked both parties to prepare sample warnings that could be read to witnesses informing them of their right against self-incrimination.
Begley and Abraham tried unsuccessfully to have the appeal dismissed and to prevent testimony from being given about absentee ballots unless Ratliff challenged them.
The judge also listened to a tape of attorney Fred Clark questioning absentee voter Jasmine Stanley at her mother’s home on Ratliff’s behalf. Brown’s lawyers wanted to bar Stanley and other voters whom Clark contacted from testifying during the trial, but Chaney denied that motion as well.
However, the judge did grant a motion that prevents Ratliff from asking absentee voters where they were on Election Day.
• Contact Charlie Smith at csmith@gwcommonwealth.com.
