When the state Board of Elections released a report two weeks ago saying there was no wrongdoing in the Swain County commissioner election of November 2006, it officially cleared County Commission Chairman Glenn Jones and others of any wrongdoing.

If that’s the board’s findings, we’ll accept it. But several parts of the state’s report were disappointing. In several areas the investigator took obvious shots at The Smoky Mountain News and those who prompted the investigation, the inference being there was a kind of conspiracy. There wasn’t. Secondly, the investigator talked to a lot fewer people than this newspaper did, and in some cases apparently didn’t ask pertinent questions.

Finally, the report did support some of what we found after the election — the wording of state statutes leaves too much room for interpretation, which also means it leaves too much room for possible abuse. Those opportunities for abuse need to be closed.

The election of 2006

For those who may not remember, the state launched its probe into the election after a series of articles in this newspaper. A Republican member of the Swain County Board of Elections took sworn affidavits from two people who claimed that they were coerced by their landlord into filling out absentee ballots in support of Glenn Jones, who was running for county board chairman. They said they were threatened with eviction if they did not vote for Jones.

The affidavits themselves warranted a news story, and so we reported on it. A subsequent examination of absentee voting records in Swain County showed an abnormally high number of requests for ballots (about as many as Haywood County, which has more than twice as many people). Apparently, many of those requests came from Jones and Willard Smith (the trailer park landlord), who had the absentee voters sign them, while state law says only voters should make the request for absentee ballots: “A written request for an absentee ballot as required by G.S. 163?230.1 is valid only if it is written entirely by the requester personally ...”

Then, Smith and Jones mailed the ballots for the voters, which, again is a violation of state election laws, at least according to some readings of the statute. It is a class I felony “For any person to take into that person’s possession for delivery to a voter or for return to a county board of elections the absentee ballot of any voter, provided, however, that this prohibition shall not apply to a voter’s near relative or the voter’s verifiable legal guardian.”

Once we found out about the affidavits, the high number of requests, the fact that Smith and Jones made the requests for the absentee ballots and then mailed them, we saw a real election issue: were voters being intimidated or somehow convinced to vote for a particular candidate? It’s one thing to help people vote, it’s another to carry out a campaign of using loopholes in state election laws to get people who otherwise might not vote to support a particular candidate.

The voters

We weren’t sure that’s what had happened, but we felt it was worth trying to find out. No single process is more important in a democracy than a fair election. There have been rumors for years that elections in Swain County were rigged, and here was at least some evidence that, on the surface, looked suspicious. The state was not interested in pursuing an investigation at this time, but we decided to ask more questions.

And so our reporter Becky Johnson went to the trailer park, to the nursing home and to the apartment complex where the absentee voters lived whose ballots were requested by Jones and Smith. Once voters were interviewed, another possible problem was revealed. Some voters told the reporter that the names that appeared as witnesses on the absentee ballots were not the same people who came to their home to help fill out the ballot. So now, in addition to the ballot request and mailing issues and the intimidation alleged by the trailer park residents, we found several discrepancies with the witnesses on the ballots.

We certainly couldn’t call for an investigation by the state but our reporting found some real potential problems.

There’s a point I want to make clear here: the voters, except those who filed the affidavits, all said they were happy to have the help of Jones and Smith. None of those we interviewed accused anyone of forcing them to vote a particular way. No formal complaints were filed with the Swain County Board of Elections. That still raises the question of whether the election laws were followed, which is why we continued to look into the matter.

The state comes in

Finally, in May 2007, the state sent an investigator to look into the issues. Several of those people who we interviewed nearly six months earlier changed their story. The investigator didn’t talk to nearly as many people as we did, and several avenues of investigation were not pursued. That’s not to say the investigation was invalid in any way, but we do believe more questions could have been asked.

What irked me, as an editor and publisher, though, was some of the language. Take this for instance: “... the Smoky Mountain News, which is published weekly and is distributed without subscriptions.” I detect a bit of jab there, but maybe I’m taking it personally.

Then, a line or two later, it says our newspaper “has apparently worked closely with Mr. (John) Herrin regarding past elections issues.”

For those who don’t know, Herrin is the GOP member of the Swain Board of Elections. The insinuation that we have worked closely with him on other elections issues is patently false, and it’s not noted where that information came from.

Finality

So what’s the result of all this? Some good has come out of the look into the Swain election of 2006.

Gary Bartlett, the director of the state Board of Elections, said the General Assembly last year passed a state law allowing multi-partisan teams to enter nursing homes and make sure voting is done correctly. Previously only legal guardians and relatives could help those in nursing homes vote.

The new law means no manipulation of those perhaps suffering forms of dementia, but it also means those without nearby relatives who want to vote will be able to. Bartlett said the state had already identified this as an important issue, but that the Swain case provided an immediate example of why the change was needed.

The probe into the Swain election also may lead to a clarification of who can mail absentee ballots. The final report said: “Although there has been no complaint about the mailing of sealed absentee ballots by someone other than a near relative, this activity by Mr. Jones raises the question whether it is inconsistent with the statute.”

We believe that question needs to be answered, to prevent abuses that could alter the outcome of elections across the state.

Over the last decade the state has taken great measures to make voting easier. That, in principle, is a good thing. More voters means better representation. The downside to the relaxation of voting rules, especially when it concerns absentee voting, is that there is more room for abuse. When votes are taken without the watchful eye of election supervisors, there is a potential for abuse.

In this case, it seems clear that the lack of clarity in the wording of the laws was used to get votes for a particular candidate. The ambiguity of the language in the laws regarding who can request absentee ballots and who can turn them in leaves a lot of room for a kind of subtle manipulation that does not serve democracy well. The problem is finding a better way, which obviously won’t be easy.

Scott McLeod can be reached at info@smokymountainnews.com.