Challenge filed over disputed school election

C.D. Houston, left defeated William Murray, right, by three votes, but three invalid votes were cast in the May 19 election.

Five "Mountain Home citizens" -- who happen to be all five members of the Mountain Home School Board of Trustees-- have filed papers to formally contest the May 19 election of the school board trustee for Zone 4.

The solution to the problem of invalid ballots that arose after the close election will now go to a state district court judge for resolution.

James Alexander, (the board chairman) Jo Gridley (the current Zone 4 trustee), and trustees Luise House, Tom Rodney and Toni Reynolds "are all residents and electors of School District No. 193 and are competent to contest such election," the school district said in a prepared statement it issued Monday.

There is no case law to deal with the issue that arose when it was discovered that three of the 91 votes cast for that election were invalid because the voters did not live in Zone 4, which is required by state law. Those three votes represented the margin of victory in the election.

Of the total 91 votes cast in Zone 4, C.D. Houston received 47 votes and William Murray received 44 votes. The board had tentatively declared Houston the winner the day after the election. But, the district noted in its prepared statement, "if all three ineligible voters voted for C.D. Houston, the election would have been a tie and the result of the election would have changed.

"Because the clear winner is difficult (to determine) due to the invalid ballots, and the contestants are committed to free and fair elections," the statement said, they are asking that a Fourth Judicial District judge hear the matter and decree one of the following:

(1) that the election be declared a tie, or,

(2) that a new election be ordered for the election of a trustee for Zone 4, or,

(3) that C.D. Houston be declared the winner of the election, or,

(4) any other remedy that the judge deems necessary.

Murray had decided not to contest the election, himself, but said any elector who felt the election was in error should have the right to do so.

Both Murray and Houston were informed of the action by the five "citizens" prior to the challenge being filed in district court Monday. Houston, who has kept a low public profile since the election, could not be reached by press time for comment.

Alexander, in a statement prior to the decision to contest the election, had said, "we just want to make sure that the right person is seated."

The board members had felt it was better that they contest the election, rather than leaving the onus on any candidate or individual elector. Although all the contestants are members of the board, technically, they are filing the challenge as individuals.

State law is unclear whether anyone in the district could contest the election, or only a person in Zone 4, which is where retiring trustee Jo Gridley lives and is the zone she represents.

"We did it because we felt if we did it this way, we covered all our bases, all of the zones were represented," Alexander said. "We have a difficult time allowing illegal votes to determine a winner, at least without asking the proper authorities what to do.

"The board took no action, as such. We as individuals did," Alexander said, with no discussion of the decision to contest the election taking place at any board meeting, nor was a quorum ever present when it was discussed individually among members outside of the board room.

If a new election is ordered, it is considered likely the judge would limit it to only the two candidates who faced off May 19. That would keep costs for the election low, since there remain plenty of ballots left over due to the low turnout on May 19.

Gridlely's term ends the third Tuesday in July, with the board's regular meeting on July 21, when new trustees are normally sworn in. If an election is ordered by the courts, legal publication requirements call for at least 30 days notice.

No date had been set by press time for a hearing by the judge on the matter.

"We're also checking into what to do with what happens when we have one board member leaving" and a vacancy exists, Alexander said. "Do we appoint a temporary placement or seat one of them? We're trying to find out now what we can do. But it looks like, in a worst-case scenario, that zone may not be represented for a couple of months."