[quote]Challenger alleged voters offered alcohol[/quote]
Longtime Holmes County Supervisor Norman Cobbins Jr. will begin serving another term in January after a challenger failed to prove accusations that Cobbins enticed voters with alcohol.
Cobbins, who has been District 1 supervisor for 16 years, faced that allegation and others from his Democratic primary opponent, Leonard Hampton, whom he defeated by three votes.
A special appointed judge recently ruled there was not enough evidence to back up Hampton’s allegations, clearing the way for Cobbins’ victory.
Cobbins could not be reached after multiple attempts this week.
He previously told The Clarion-Ledger: “I would say that anything (Hampton) says I did, he did the same thing.”
Hampton’s attorney, John Reeves, said his client is “very satisfied that he got a fair hearing.”
“It’s hard to make a case, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen,” he said.
Hampton had led Cobbins in the Aug. 2 primary by 17 votes, but did not secure a clear majority to avoid a runoff. The Aug. 23 runoff results showed Cobbins up 436 votes to Hampton’s 433.
Cobbins faced no Republican opponent in the Nov. 8 election.
Reeves said Hampton intends to seek the post again in four years.
According to the judge’s ruling, Lexington resident Reginald Kimbrough testified in Holmes County Circuit Court that Cobbins bought him a six-pack of beer and gave him about $5 or $10, then said he would like his vote. But Kimbrough was not believed to be credible.
“Due to the demeanor, the speech pattern and the general presentation of this witness, the court has significant issues as to the credibility of the testimony offered,” Judge Charles Webster wrote. “While the witness denied having anything to drink on the morning of his appearing in court, the court is not of great confidence in the witness’ denial.”
Kimbrough’s testimony ultimately was deemed “self-contradictory.”
Reeves said he understands the questions raised by Kimbrough’s testimony.
“Unfortunately, the people who are preyed on are the poor, the illiterate, the downtrodden. That’s why they are preyed on,” he said.
He said he still believes there is some validity to claims of vote buying.
“There’s no doubt in my mind,” he said.
But Webster determined the only credible issue Hampton raised was concern over how absentee ballots cast in one precinct were handled.
The judge threw out 155 ballots cast either by absentee or affidavit because they were not properly secured during the counting process and could have been accessed by nonelection officials during a lunch break.
“While there was no proof of actual tampering with these ballots, the absentee and/or affidavit ballots were available for tampering,” the ruling states.
Hampton also had claimed absentee ballots were not witnessed. As evidence, he noted one woman had witnessed several ballots , but the judge said there was nothing improper.
“Those voters whose ballots were witnessed by (her) were primarily elderly and disabled,” Webster’s order states. “In all but one instance, (she) was called by the absentee voter after the voter had voted the ballot, placed the ballot in the appropriate envelope and sealed the envelope.”
By Elizabeth Crisp | Clarion Ledger
0 Comments