Chapter 4 Candidate Fountain Run Jessie Pearl Curtis Patsy Jernigan Melva Jean Headrick Total West Tompkinsville 153 61 12 226 167 158 107 432 Similar irregularities occurred at both precincts. There was open voting, and people who assisted voters in casting their ballots did not execute the affidavit required of the assistor. The number of married couples who were allowed to vote together was not determined for either precinct (in the words of the court of appeals, it was “never even speculated on”). People who assisted at least four people in West Tompkinsville, and perhaps between 25 and 50 in Fountain Run, did not complete the affidavit that was required before giving assistance. At the West Tompkinsville Precinct, the omission may have been inadvertent. At the Fountain Run Precinct, it was deliberate: the poll manager testified that she decided that the affidavits were unnecessary saying, “If you can’t trust the judges [precinct officers] you shouldn’t have the election anyway.” At 692. At both precincts, there were people whose names appeared twice on the check list (two people at West Tompkinsville; one at Fountain Run). At the West Tompkinsville Precinct, there were five more votes cast on the voting machine than there were voters on the polling place check list. At the Fountain Run Precinct, this discrepancy was avoided by manipulating the numbers so that they came out equal.74 The court of appeals was satisfied that these irregularities occurred, but the evidence did not show either the particular number of ballots involved in the irregularities or for whom those ballots may have been cast. The court concluded that the irregularities were not sufficient to throw out the election results at the West Tompkinsville Precinct. Although the above indicates that the election officials at the West Tompkinsville precinct were either ignorant of their function or didn’t care how they performed it, it is our opinion that the circuit judge was not erroneous in refusing to throw out this precinct. The count discrepancy was only shown to be seven votes. Improper assistance was proven in less than ten cases. The instances of improper open voting were not even estimated, and it cannot be assumed that it was substantial. There were over 500 votes cast in this precinct on May 26. It has not been demonstrated that the errors set out above so destroyed the fairness of the election in this precinct that the votes of this precinct should be discarded. At 690. The Fountain Run Precinct, however, was a different matter. There, the court said, It would appear that standing alone, the amount of proven open voting would not justify throwing out the result in this precinct. However, the open voting, the technical failures of the election officers and their defiance of the law in providing assistance to voters create an ominous backdrop for the activities of Levi Waller and Bo Tooley. 74 The number of voters on the voting machine usually is determined by subtracting the number shown on the machine when the polls open from the number on the machine when the polls close. At the Fountain Run Precinct, the opening number shown on the machine was not recorded. Instead, the opening number was made up—after voting was over—by subtracting the number of people on the clerk’s check list from the final number shown on the voting machine. That maneuver also made the number of voters on the machine match the number of voters on the clerk’s check list. Other manipulations, not discussed here, are described in the court’s opinion. 87