Chapter 2 City of Cleveland. Mr. Rizzo sued to have the election rerun in the Central Cleveland Precinct and the East Central Cleveland Precinct because of violations of the election code in and around the polls.43 At the Central Cleveland Precinct, Mr. Bizzell’s sister-in-law, Virginia Dickerson, violated the 150-foot limit on campaigning around the polling place, according to the findings of the special judge. In fact, other buildings were so close to the polling place building that everyone who campaigned near the poll had to violate the 150-foot limit. But Mrs. Dickerson did so more than the others, and for six hours she crossed the street to campaign on behalf of Mr. Bizzell at the polling place. Finally, an election official told her to stay on the other side of the street, and she did. Matters were much more unsettled at the East Central Cleveland Precinct, where 355 people voted in the run-off election—243 for Mr. Rizzo and 112 for Mr. Bizzell. Mr. Bizzell had hired a man named Beverly Perkins as a campaign worker and designated him as a poll watcher at the East Central Cleveland Precinct. During the morning of election day, Willie Earl Griffin, a supporter of Mr. Rizzo, swore out a warrant against Mr. Perkins for disturbing the peace. Around mid-morning, the police arrested Mr. Perkins, but he was released and returned to the East Central Cleveland polling place to continue his poll watching. As a part of his poll watching, Mr. Perkins—according to the findings of the special judge— violated the restriction on campaigning within 150 feet of the polling place, harassed and annoyed people and otherwise made himself obnoxious, and discouraged Mr. Rizzo’s supporters by telling them that the election “had already been wrapped up.” At 123. The judge found conflicting evidence as to whether Mr. Perkins accompanied any of those people into the voting booth. Mr. Rizzo’s witnesses testified that the bailiff (in charge of keeping the peace in the poll) refused to allow voters assistance in casting their ballots, even though assistance was to be allowed to voters who were blind, disabled or illiterate. The special judge found denial of assistance occurred at least once, although Mr. Bizzell’s witnesses testified to the contrary. The bailiff and the poll manager had been appointed to their positions in the polling place by a Bizzell supporter on the Democratic executive committee who had been a Rizzo supporter but changed allegiances after Mr. Rizzo, who had been a county supervisor, fired him from his county job. However, there was no question that Mr. Bizzell came into the polling place and gave the poll manager $20—he said it was for refreshments and that he later got the money back through a third-party.44 As for the 150-foot rule, the Mississippi Supreme Court focused on the part of the statute that said the votes in a precinct may be thrown out if the failure to comply with the requirement makes it “impossible to arrive at the will of the voters at such precinct…unless it be made to appear with reasonable certainty that the irregularities were not deliberately permitted or engaged in by the manager at that box.” The supreme court said, At the central Cleveland precinct no one, including Rizzo’s supporters, could comply with the 150foot rule. The testimony was that Ms. Dickerson did not attempt to intimidate or harass anyone, and she did move back across the street and remained there after being instructed to do so by a polling official. There was no evidence that Ms. Dickerson’s actions were engaged in or permitted by the election officials, or that Bizzell authorized or knew of Ms. Dickerson’s violations. Mr. Rizzo’s complaint was heard by a special judge and by the five-member county election commission. The judge rejected Mr. Rizzo’s claims, but the election commission decided that new elections should be held in both precincts. Mr. Rizzo appealed the judge’s decision to the Mississippi Supreme Court. 44 The county election commissioners found that Mr. Perkins intentionally violated the laws to advance Mr. Bizzell’s candidacy, that the two poll managers violated the secrecy of the ballot, that a number of voters who needed assistance were denied assistance from a person of their choice, and that new elections should be held in both precincts. The commissioner who cast the deciding vote regarding both precincts was a Rizzo supporter who helped Mr. Rizzo organize his campaign. 43 37