Judge expected to order new Turkey Creek mayor election without calling for court hearing

The district judge who dismissed the case of Cloud vs. Louisiana Secretary of State probably will issue orders as directed by the Third District Court of appeals last week, without calling a court hearing.
The case was dismissed in district court here after no witnesses were heard, sent back here to the same court after an appeal to, and remand from, the state supreme court. Witnesses were called for the plaintiff, Turkey Creek Mayor Heather Cloud and for the defense, which included the secretary of state and Bert Keith Campbell, who won the November election for mayor by a vote of 110 to 106.
However, the judge, while dismissing the case a second time, did rule there was evidence of four instances of vote buying. And that is cited by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Lake Charles as justification for throwing those ballots out, and because that would make it a tie vote, calling for a new election for Turkey Creek mayor.
The three appellate court judges who issued the ruling last week were Sylvia R. Cooks, Billy H. Ezell and Phyllis M. Keaty. Cooks wrote, in the introduction to the appeals court ruling, that the judges were to decide “whether the trial court,” in Ville Platte, “erred in dismissing the petition contesting the election.” The trial began in the Evangeline Courthouse on Monday, November 24, and ended Wednesday, November 26.
The court here found that the four voters received $15 and a “ticket” with Campbell’s and others’ ballot numbers, but no names. The court here also cited state law that makes paying money and receiving money to vote a certain way illegal. The four voters testified for the plaintiffs after being granted immunity from prosecution.
The appeals court ruling stated, “We are not going to disturb the trial court’s findings of fact,” because “the trial court,” in Ville Platte that heard the testimony “is in a better position to determine the credibility of witnesses...” However, the appeals court ruled “the trial court made an error of law in improperly applying the findings of” precedent in prior Louisiana court findings.
The appeals court ruling also stated the state election code “defines bribery and provides the penalties and terms of imprisonment applicable to violators. It also provides the circumstances for immunity from prosecution.”
The appellate court judges wrote that revised state statutes “provides authority for the trial court to subtract illegal votes from the recipient’s total votes cast, and thereafter determine the result of the election.”
The judges cited a state statute that begins, “When the court finds that one or more of the votes cast in a contested election are illegal or fraudulent, the judge shall subtract such vote or votes from the total votes cast for the candidate who received them if the contest involves election to office...”
The same statute ends, “and after considering all the evidence, the court shall determine the result of the election.”
The judges’ statement also said, unlike precedent cases cited by the judge in the district court here -- which found that disqualifying the illegal votes “would make no difference” in the outcome of those elections -- in the district court case here in late November, “The four contested votes... are exactly the number of votes that changed the outcome of the election.”
Reflecting the issues raised by Mayor Cloud regarding the civil lawsuit she took to court, the appellate judges wrote in their ruling, “Bought votes should never be allowed to determine the outcome of an election,” and “Vote buying is illegal in Louisiana and we declare it so.”
However, the judges’ 11-page ruling ended by affirming the district court’s “heavy burden of assessing credibility, which the trial court has done in this case.”
Before the second dismissal in district court was appealed, Cloud said she was trying to “protect the sanctity of the vote.”