Opinion ID: 1679212
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Democratic Executive Committee Member Charles Williams

Text: Charles Williams, a former Rizzo supporter who supported Bizzell, was a member of the Democratic executive committee elections subcommittee. Subcommittee members recommended poll workers to the full committee for their particular precincts, thus Williams apparently recommended Hughes and Little for the east central Cleveland precinct. Williams and Rizzo had a falling out when then Supervisor Rizzo asked for Williams' resignation from a county agency position to which Rizzo had originally appointed him. The special judge found that Williams should not have participated in the executive committee review of the original election contest because of this conflict of interest. The special judge found that Williams' conduct did not effect the outcome of the election contest, however.
The special judge found evidence to support several allegations, but determined ultimately that none of the improprieties required ordering a new election. The will of the voters could be ascertained, and there was no conduct of a fraudulent nature. Specifically, the special judge found: 1) Beverly Perkins violated the 150-foot rule and Perkins' conduct constituted rather serious technical violations which should have led to his removal by the party employing him. The evidence was abundant that Perkins corralled voters in the street, but evidence was insufficient to establish that he accompanied them into voting booths. Perkins constantly harassed and annoyed people and otherwise made himself obnoxious. 2) There was insufficient evidence that polling officials entered voting booths on more than one occasion. The special judge found the evidence conflicting and he stated there seemed to be some confusion among the witnesses as to who was an official and who was a campaigner. 3) The proof was unclear and perhaps insufficient to establish that on more than one occasion polling officials refused to permit a voter to have the person of their choice assist them in voting. 4) Specifically, as to eligible voter Ernest Jones, it was not clear whether Jones made known his wish to have a particular person assist him, and thus any violation of his right to assistance was not willful or deliberate. 5) Bizzell admitted handing money to an election official, which constituted a technical violation and an absence of good judgment, but the transfer was not intended to affect the outcome of the election. 6) Charles Williams and another Democratic executive committeeman, Larry Carter, may have had an interest in the election such that they should have recused themselves from the committee deliberations on Rizzo's petition, but that action was not being reviewed by the court. 7) Ms. Dickerson did indeed violate the 150-foot rule at the central Cleveland polling place. 8) No fraudulent conduct occurred at either box. In contrast, the election commissioners filed findings January 25, 1988, in which they concluded that Perkins wilfully violated voting laws in an attempt to further Bizzell's candidacy, and that polls managers acquiesced in these violations. The commissioners' tribunal also found, unanimously, that two of the election managers at east central Cleveland precinct violated the secrecy of the ballot by pulling the voting machine curtains or otherwise observing voters without their consent. They also found that a substantial number of blind, disabled or illiterate voters were denied assistance by a person of their own choosing. A majority of the five commissioners on the tribunal found that a new election should be held in the east central Cleveland precinct. A majority likewise found Ms. Dickerson's violations of voting laws at the central Cleveland precinct to be wilful and intentional. The commissioner casting the deciding vote on all split commission findings was David W. Washington. On voir dire before the special judge, Washington acknowledged he supported Rizzo and had previously helped him organize campaign workers. Washington stated that he had gone to the east central Cleveland precinct and seen wrongdoings, which he reported to counsel for the election commission. The special judge said that had the final decision rested with the election commission, then Washington would have been disqualified. Since the special judge had the final decision, Washington was not disqualified. Following this judgment Rizzo perfected this appeal and it comes to this Court upon expedited review pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-933 (Supp. 1987).