Attorney Hal North says an election challenge brought by County Commission District 3 candidate Daved Senters is "frivolous."

Attorney North represents incumbent Charlotte Vandergriff, who won by 89 votes.

Mr. Senters, a Republican, and Democrat Warren Mackey, who lost to incumbent County Commissioner William Cotton in District 4, have both filed challenges.

Mr. North said in a letter to Lance Frizzell of the Tennessee Republican Primary Board:

I represent County Commissioner Charlotte Vandergriff with regard to the contest by Daved Senters of the Republican primary election for the Third District of the Hamilton County Commission, which election was held on May 7, 2002.

As a former Republican Executive Committee member, Hamilton County Election Commissioner and Hamilton County Republican Party Chairman, I am concerned that Mr. Senters has taken a philosophical approach similar to that of Albert Gore, that ‘an election is not over until the last court has ruled.’

A review of the actual votes cast in that election is illustrative of the frivolous nature of Mr. Senters’ contest. The “unofficial final” tabulation from the Election Commission, included herewith, reveals that Commissioner Vandergriff received 979 votes (51.39%), while Mr. Senters received 890 votes (46.72%), for a difference of 89 votes. Mr. Senters’ initial complaint is that “his” voters were turned away at the Ganns and Pleasant Grove precincts. It is hard to understand Mr. Senters’ “implied conspiracy theory,” in light of the actual outcome for those precincts, based upon the votes cast. Mr. Senters’ disparagement of the election workers at those precincts, many of whom have worked those polls for years, is also troubling.

With regard to the Ganns precinct, Mr. Senters received 72 votes (50.35%), while Commissioner Vandergriff received 71 votes (49.65%). In the Pleasant Grove I
precinct, Mr. Senters received 87 votes (58%) and Commissioner Vandergriff 61 votes (40.67%). In the Pleasant Grove II precinct, Mr. Senters received 73 votes (45.34%), and Commissioner Vandergriff received 86 votes (53.42%). Thus, in those three precincts, Mr. Senters received 232 votes (51.5%), while Commissioner Vandergriff received 218 votes (48.4%).

Mr. Senters indicates that he “was deprived of their votes [in these precincts] which altered the outcome of the election.” Local media accounts indicate that Mr. Senters asserts that as many as 200 voters were turned away from these precincts. Apparently, Mr. Senters asserts that almost 1 out of every 3 individuals who attempted to vote at these three precincts (30.77%) were turned away. While Commissioner Vandergriff strongly disputes Mr. Senters’ representations in this regard, such “irregularities” would not have cost him the election, even if they were somehow proven correct. For Mr. Senters to have made up the 90 votes required for him to have won the election outright, he would have had to have received at least 145 votes out of the 200 allegedly turned away, or 72.5%. It is important to note that Mr. Senters did not receive 72.5% of the vote in any precinct in the
Third County Commission District.

Mr. Senters also asserts that “voters were wrongfully instructed that they could vote for me by writing in my name on the Democratic Ballot.” With regard to this additional alleged “conspiratorial act,” please note that 9 voters cast write-in ballots for Mr. Senters in the Democratic primary, while Ms. Vandergriff received 6 such votes. Obviously, such “wrongful instruction” adversely affected both candidates, and clearly did not alter the outcome of the election.

Mr. Senters requests that he “either be declared the nominee of the Republican Party” for Third District, or a new election be held for that nomination. As discussed above, even if Mr. Senters’ allegations of voters being turned away were proven to be correct, there is certainly no basis for the Primary Board to determine that 3/4 of the voters he asserts were turned away from the three precincts were “his”. Furthermore, his suggestion to conduct a new election for the Third County Commission District, at a substantial cost to the taxpayers, is equally ludicrous.

Again, we believe that Mr. Senters’ contest of this election is not factually supportable and should, in all respects, be denied.

Please direct all further communication in this matter to me, and let me know whether you need any further information in this regard.

Very truly yours,

Harold L. North, Jr.