Kenny Cotton said he believes county officials intentionally derailed his challenge to the sheriff’s election that earned Mark Shepherd a third term by telling him he could review ballot boxes on Wednesday then saying he missed the deadline.
Cotton had 12 days to review the boxes after election commissioners certified the election. Initially, officials believed commissioners certified the election on Nov. 18, but Pike County Circuit Clerk Roger Graves learned Wednesday that they completed the certification on Nov. 17. That made Tuesday of this week the deadline for a review.
Graves said he initially believed two commissioners certified the election results on Nov. 17, with the other three doing so on Nov. 18. But, the first two commissioners approved the results on Nov. 16, and the remaining three did so on Nov. 17.
Shepherd’s attorney, Stewart Robison of McComb, and Cotton both said they believed the election was certified Nov. 18 before finding out Wednesday morning that it was certified the day before.
In a letter to Graves dated Nov. 20, Cotton initially requested to set the review for Monday. Shepherd, in a Nov. 21 letter, requested the review be set for Wednesday.
Robison said Graves first suggested a Wednesday review at Cotton’s request, and Robison said he had a scheduling conflict on Monday.
Shepherd said he requested Wednesday because Graves told him Cotton wanted to do the review that day.
“I never requested anything until after he made a request,” Shepherd said. “Mine was based on what he requested.”
Cotton said Graves, citing an attorney general’s opinion, told him that he and Shepherd had to agree to a date to review the ballots.
However, Cotton, who is Summit police chief, contends no statute required Shepherd to be at the review.
“The law and the statute say nothing about him having to be there. Roger didn’t tell me that,” Cotton said. “I should’ve listened to my good friends and advisers, Warren Ellis Gilmore and David Myers. We were sure about what was going on.”
Graves said he was unable to reach Robison to set a date. He said Cotton later agreed to a Wednesday review.
“I trusted Roger,” Cotton said. “He led me down the wrong path. It appeared he did it intentionally.
Cotton said he met with Graves on Nov. 18. “I looked Roger in his eyes,” he said. “Roger told me the election wasn’t certified.”
Also at issue is the deadline to challenge an election. According to state law, candidates have 20 days from the election date to file a challenge. That deadline passed Monday.
Graves said Cotton came to him for advice about the timeline of the review and challenge process. However, Graves said, Cotton would’ve been better served to ask a lawyer about the deadlines.
“All of this could’ve been remedied if he’d sought the legal advice of a lawyer,” Graves said. “The (the deadline to challenge) is a lawyer question. Really, the question about examining the boxes, that’s a lawyer question.”
Graves said Cotton did not ask about the challenge deadline and limited his questions to the review itself. He admitted he mistakenly gave Cotton the wrong deadline for the review, but said it was not intentional.
“Misleading is the last thing I would do,” Graves said. “That’s what bothers me emotionally more than anything else. That’s the last thing I would do, would be to hurt anybody.”
Graves said Cotton can still review the boxes through a public records request, but he is uncertain if a legal avenue is still available for a challenge.
Robison said nothing occurred in the post-election process to intentionally mislead Cotton.
“There was nothing calculated to mislead anyone in any direction,” Robison said. “Mr. Cotton could have challenged this election at any point in time after Nov. 8. We were well aware that the deadline had passed and no contest had been filed.”
Robison added that the examination of the ballot boxes is not a prerequisite to contest the election.
“The argument that, ‘Well, how do we know if we have anything to contest without looking in the boxes?’ misses the mark, in my opinion,” Robison said.
Cotton said he believed the election process was carried out correctly. However, that belief does not leave him without doubts.
“I was hoping not to find anything wrong,” Cotton said. “There were a lot of indicators they didn’t want me to look (at boxes).”
The oversight depletes Cotton’s options to review or challenge the election.
“I love (my supporters). Everything in my body wants to fight this,” Cotton said. “Right now, we need to focus on the next four years. Not just the sheriff’s race, but every county official that has betrayed the integrity of their position.
“Congratulations to Mark, and I look forward to working with him and his staff.”
Cotton reiterated that he will run again in four years.
Shepherd defeated Cotton by 141 votes after election commissioners counted affidavit ballots on Nov. 14. At the end of Election Day voting, Cotton held a 27-vote advantage. After factoring in 784 absentee ballots, Shepherd gained a 163-vote lead.
“As far as I know it is over with,” Shepherd said. “We’re very humbled that the voters chose us again. We worked hard the last eight years and plan to continue to work hard the next four.
“I’ve been very fortunate to serve as Pike County sheriff. I thank everyone who supported me. It was a clean race, as far as I knew.”
