• Home Delivery
• Customer Services
• Contact Us

Print | Email |

GOP Primary Board rejects Venable's recount request

The Tennessee Republican Party (TRP) Primary Board unanimously voted Wednesday to deny 1st Congressional District GOP primary runner-up Richard Venable's request for a recount in his 576-vote loss to state Rep. David Davis.

Thirty-eight members on the TRP's 66-member state executive committee, which serves as the primary board, acted quickly to turn away Venable's request, which reached party headquarters in Nashville on Monday.

Committee members made the decision in a conference call.

"That's about the only way in a prompt manner we could get a quorum, and we needed 34 (executive committee members) for a quorum," TRP Executive Director Chris Devaney said of the conference call. "The voters deserve prompt action. We said this would be handled in a prompt manner according to Tennessee election law. This was a vote on whether or not to proceed (with a recount)."

The denial clears the way for Davis, a Johnson City Republican, to be the official GOP nominee to oppose Democrat Rick Trent of Morristown in the November election. Democrats haven't held the congressional seat in more than 100 years. Davis is seeking to succeed retiring U.S. Rep. William L. "Bill" Jenkins of Rogersville.

In the recount request, Venable had cited "apparent difficulties in accessing voting machines and tabulating the results." Out of his 16,003 votes, Venable received nearly 6,900 votes in Sullivan County - the county with the largest number of GOP votes in the district. However, a large ballot and long lines at a number of county polling locations did not help his voter turnout.

Venable, Sullivan County's outgoing mayor and a possible candidate to head up the county economic development group NETWORKS, did not sound satisfied with the TRP's denial.

"Considering the way in which the meeting of the state executive committee was arranged and conducted, I expected that result," Venable said of the decision. "I congratulate Representative Davis on his win, and I wish him well."

Devaney said committee members believed Venable's request "didn't rise to the level of a recount."

Davis, who received 16,579 votes in the primary and about 22 percent of the total vote, indicated committee members informed him of their decision.

"Those votes have been audited and certified, and they asked (Venable) if he had any proof of any fraud or any reason that would change the outcome by 576 votes," Davis said. "They decided he didn't have enough proof to request a recount. So they denied his request to hold up the election. ... I'm ready to move forward, to carry the Republican banner and be the next congressman for the 1st District."

Tennessee law authorizes a recount in the case of a tie vote, an indication of voter fraud, voting machine malfunctions or tabulation problems, and "any other instance the court or body with jurisdiction of a contested election finds that a recount is warranted."

A complete district recount would have involved 12 Northeast Tennessee counties.

Discuss This Story

Be the first to comment: Sign In or Create Profile .

Enter Username Enter Password

I have yet to find if TN has a voting time limit in the booths, yet I feel a disenfranchisement of voters whether of time or ignorance is at the point. All Tennesseans can vote early without an excuse, but too little fulfill that privilege and so be it to be undecided until the last second. This leads to lines long enough to fool any poll worker about the knowledge of voters when it comes to these new machines. The ballots in Anderson County were over 5 pages, and sample ballots were rare to find. The decision that no voting laws were violated leads me to believe that Neal Boortz of the Neal Boortz Show on radio is correct that ?nobody has a right to vote as written in the original founding father's Bill of Rights?. People stating the machines have tallied hold that idea strongly today. Maybe, just maybe, these machines are voting and not us the living. I just ask the judge of these election appeal decisions these questions. If a ball team is only allowed a limited amount of time of possession before a play must be enacted, what is the impression of the sport if the official doesn't watch the play clock? And, if a group of voters are to block polls to other voters waiting by taking their time to vote, when is the disenfranchised allowed to vote? I still cannot believe the lack of concern for the voters by the election commission. Maybe nobody saw the length of the ballot as a time issue, but many voters have seen that when it comes to our votes counting is only good in the courts and not the community.

Raymond Kircher | 8/24/2006 - 1:24 PM - (Suggest Removal )

Home | Login | Local News | Obits | Sports | Business | Opinions | Blogs | Classifieds| Business Profiles

Web Feeds/RSS | Contact Us | Customer Service | Privacy Statement | Common Questions | E-Edition | Subscriptions | Site Map

© 2010 Kingsport Publishing Corporation - Innovation by Times Digital Group