Nickelson & Whitehorn Submit Legal Briefs In Sheriff's Election Challenge
Source: YouTube| kslachannel12
In the latest on the Caddo Parish Sheriff election, while some outlets are reporting the content of the Nickelson and Caddo Legal Briefs accurately and outlining the arguments of each, others are presenting a decidedly one-sided and partisan view, supporting the narrative that John Nickelson’s objections to the vote count are ‘sour grapes’ and the actions of a sore loser, or worse: an open attempt to manipulate the vote, while the response of Henry Whitehorn is well-reasoned and correct. But neither of these is accurate or acceptable.
John Nickelson has brought a calm, rational, and entirely reasonable objection to how the election was carried out in Caddo Parish, while the Whitehorn camp has decided to zero in on one of the many irregularities and issues presented, and further to appeal to the court that evidently the fearful masses of Shreveport and Bossier aren’t emotionally mature enough to tolerate an election being deliberated in court saying “to overturn this election promises to create tension among the electorate likely leading to diminished confidence in the integrity of the election process.”
In this, the Whitehorn campaign seems to be tacitly saying, ‘Gosh we wouldn’t want to make people angry if it turns out we didn’t win.’
As reported by KSLA, Whitehorn’s legal team said, “Elections should not be decided by the judiciary” and that
“Louisiana courts have made it clear that the results of an election are to be disturbed only under extraordinary circumstances where a plaintiff introduces compelling evidence that is ‘sufficient to change the result in the election.’”
According to the outlet Whitehorn’s team made the narrow claim that Nickelson’s campaign intentionally did not call either of the two duplicate voters to testify, saying “public records confirm that they are registered Republicans.” They suggested also there is “no evidence as to how the consideration of those two alleged irregularities was drawn to the attention of Mr. Nickelson.” The brief concludes “there is not one scintilla of evidence that these voters even voted in the Sheriff’s election.”
WATCH:
Meanwhile, Nickelson’s team makes it quite clear that the requirement of “extraordinary circumstances” has been met in several different irregularities.
Nickelson’s attorneys wrote,
“The putative single vote margin is even more problematic given the number of votes proven to be unlawful, or at best irregular, based upon other defects. From dubious voters to even more questionable patterns and procedures, to varying numbers between the counting of ballots on election night and during the machine recount, there are simply too any substantial irregularities to shrug off in an election this close.”
“In addition to the unwaivable irregularities of multiple votes, interdicted voter and deceased voters, the board of election supervisors failed to fulfill its statutory charge and ensure compliance with the law. This undisputed failure of process likewise constitutes a substantial irregularity.”
“Numerous counted absentee ballots were unwitnessed and unsigned, two citizens voted twice, and four interdicts (and at least two deceased individuals) voted. The ballot submitted into evidence also show that multiple witnesses witnessed more than one non-family member’s absentee ballot (a practice made illegal to discourage ballot harvesting.) As a consequence of each of these substantial irregularities and all of the collectively, the outcome of the Nov. 18th 2023 election for Caddo parish Sheriff cannot be conclusively determined.
But by all means, you should judge for yourself: You can read Nickelson’s Brief here:
And Whitehorn’s response here.