Judge to rule on Florence mayoral primary July 14

FLORENCE — Twelfth Circuit Judge Michael Nettles has announced he will issue a ruling July 14 on incumbent Frank Willis’ appeal in the Florence mayoral race, the results of which show Willis trailing Stephen J. Wukela by one vote.

Willis’ attorneys filed an appeal June 26 calling for the court to reverse last month’s 4-2 decision of the state Democratic party’s Board of State Canvassers of Municipal Primaries and order a new primary. No Republicans filed for the office.

A 90-minute hearing on the appeal took place Wednesday morning in Florence.

Wukela said he thinks the court will uphold the outcome “redeemed on election night” and by the state Democratic party, although he has “two different sets” of feelings regarding the circuit court hearing.

“On the other hand, I am troubled by the divisiveness of this protest,” he said.

Willis said everything remains in limbo until the judge makes a ruling.

“We got before a court of law — not a court of opinion, but a court of law,” he said. “We got our turn.”

Nettles also set July 9 as the deadline for proposed orders, in which the candidates’ attorneys state how they think the law should determine the case’s outcome.

The certified results of a recount in the mayoral primary showed Wukela with 1,469 votes to Willis’ 1,468 — the same results that followed the review of challenged ballots two days after the June 10 primary.

Jim Richardson of Columbia, representing Willis, said he’s never seen a one-vote margin between candidates before.

“This election was hopelessly confused,” he told the judge. “It only takes one (illegal) vote to compel the court” to order a new primary.

Steve Wukela Jr., representing his son, said a candidate can’t “sit on (his) hands and say, ‘Ah — confusion is an ally.’”

He argued against “after-discovered evidence” in the case and said state law requires Willis to have challenged any ballots before they were cast.

Richardson said a 1996 amendment to state law allows a candidate to show evidence discovered after votes are cast. He said the S.C. Supreme Court is the “only building in South Carolina” where it could be decided whether that law exempts primaries.

Steve Wukela Jr. also said Willis didn’t file a timely protest to the state Democratic party according to state law governing municipal elections. He said the protest, filed June 13, should have been filed 48 hours after polls closed at 7 p.m. June 10.

Richardson argued that the protest was filed on time. S.C. State Election Commission spokesman Garry Baum said in a previous interview that Willis had two days to protest after results were certified June 12.

Willis’ appeal states that several votes were illegally cast and should have been rejected by law, which would cause the primary results to be “rendered doubtful.”

The appeal also states that five voters outside city limits were erroneously allowed to vote in the city’s primaries.

Richardson said Wednesday that the primary could have been decided by a Timmonsville woman who was allowed to vote in the Florence mayoral race.

In addition, Willis’ attorneys have argued that at least nine voters weren’t allowed to vote in Florence’s city primaries even though they are city residents.

They also say that at least 10 voters weren’t allowed to vote in the Democratic city primary because they voted in the Republican federal, state and county primaries. Florence city voters completed two separate ballots and could “split” their vote between parties if they wished.

The appeal also argues that the elections commission accidentally included a city ballot that shouldn’t have been counted in certified vote totals.

Willis’ attorneys said the voter, a Florence resident who had been registered to vote in Lake City, didn’t follow the proper procedure to cast a Florence city primary ballot. Wukela’s campaign has argued that the voter lived in Florence and that her ballot was valid and legal.

The appeal also charges that several city residents voted at precincts other than the ones where they were registered.

It states that city residents on Westview Drive were directed to vote at another precinct because the Delmae No. 2 precinct had no city ballots.

Willis’ attorneys also wrote that a voter moved from one city precinct to another, but voted in the precinct where she no longer lived.