January 3, 2016
NAPOLITANO vs. HENDERSON
Most stories have two sides in this case three or more
Video offers some clarification
Emails feature in election law
Controversy over ballot order and drawing notification has erupted over the course of New Years’ weekend.
The race for Sheriff between MCSO Captain Rand Henderson and Montgomery Police Chief Jim Napolitano has just encountered its first point of contention following questions of whether proper notification of the ballot position drawing was given to candidates in accordance with Texas election code and even if the drawing order was changed after the fact.
The trigger for the dispute was an email sent by County GOP Chairman Dr. Wally Wilkerson to Courier of Montgomery County Editor Andy Dubois and the candidates concerned stating “I regret that two errors were made by the Republican Party when we posted the order of the ballot drawing by candidates both on the Party and Secretary of State websites. In the race for Sheriff, the correct order should have been Rand Henderson #1 and Jin sic Napolitano #2. In the race for Precinct #50 Chairman, the correct order should have been Reagan Reed #1 and Gary Henson #2.”
The Napolitano campaign expressed concerns that that the drawing position order results appeared to have been reversed after the fact from Napolitano #1 and Henderson # 2 and contrary to results published on the Secretary of State Candidate Filings page. They asked was there a “secret ballot”.
Furthermore, they questioned if Party HQ had followed correct notification procedure for the drawing because Napolitano, who did not attend the drawing claims Napolitano “never was notified” while citing Texas Election Code Sec. 172.082 which states “All candidates who provide an e-mail address on their filing form shall be notified electronically.”
We contacted Dr. Wilkerson and the Henderson Campaign for comment via email on New Years’ eve. Even so, Dr. Wilkerson did offer a reply stating “the results of the drawing was reported to the County Elections office and, as required by the SOS, posted to the SOS website. For whatever reason, the order of candidates in these two races was incorrect on the SOS website. This was reported to me by the Elections Administrator. I have notified the RPT who is responsible for posting the list on the SOS website.” As for following the email clause in Sec. 172.082 “The RPT notified County Chairmen that posting on the website was adequate notice of the drawing” he wrote via email adding that “most checked the website because we had a good number of candidates present probably more than usually attend.”
Candidate Rand Henderson replied to questions via email JAN 2 stating he “was not able to attend the drawing as I was in a meeting at that time so I sent a representative. Since I wasn’t there, Dr. Wilkerson drew for me and pulled #1 on the ballot. My notification came from my supporter who was in attendance. I did include my email on the form, but did not receive an email from the MCRP on this topic.”
Henderson claims that “Dr. Wilkerson did confirm that Napolitano was told his place on the ballot” but also stated in the message that his opponent “allowed his campaign team to make a case against me that there was corruption involved in a switch of the ballot order.”
And then, “I knew it was coming when I saw one of the cloaked Napolitano FaceBook pages called Montgomery County Election Watch had posted the incorrect ballot order with a time stamp on it. As I expected, they claimed cronyism, corruption,”
According to Henderson’s campaign at least one Facebook posting read “Henderson threw a fit and got the ballot order changed”
A video provided by the Henderson Campaign does show the drawing conducted by Dr. Wilkerson and Mrs. Melinda Fredricks with as few as 8 people in the room. According to Hendersons’ side the video “burned the Napolitano camp’s corruption lies that I had colluded with Dr. Wilkerson, they began taking down all of their posts. They knew where they were second on the ballot and did it anyway. “
Focusing on the notification issue a follow up message from the Napolitano side JAN 2 reads “The SOS site does not show Precinct candidates, but Gary Henson learned after Wilkerson’s e-mail to the media (he was never contacted before or after the incident) that he was dropped from #1 to #2 – despite the fact that he also listed his e-mail, per election law.”
Another report form Napolitano advised they had received a call from former HCN reporter Kimberly Sutton inquiring about the ballot drawing, – “being very defensive about how the drawing was properly handled” They also noted “she (Sutton) said she was there and only about four people were in attendance”
We note after reviewing the video that only one female, Mrs.Fredricks shows up or can be heard in the video provided by the Henderson Campaign.
Update. On closer review of the video, one figure seen as the camera pans around the room does appear to be Kimberly Sutton.
Reach by telephone on Thursday, County Elections Registrar Suzie Harvey told how she had discovered the discrepancy between the ballot order reported to Austin and the one certified by Party HQ based on a handwritten note made by Dr. Wilkerson recording the results left with her office.
Also reached by telephone was SOS Elections Section Attorney Tim Juro. On the question of the email clause in Sec. 172.082 said I don’t believe there is a criminal penalty attached to it”, but that “ it is certainly actionable should any party wish to take the issue to court.
