Godwin election protest dismissed after board finds insufficient evidence that clerk’s text messages changed outcome

The Godwin Board of Elections dismissed a protest on whether the results of the Nov. 4 town commissioner election were tainted by election‑day messages from a town employee.

Protester Dennis C. Smith Sr. alleged the town clerk sent text messages on election day urging recipients to "vote for George Cooper, Joseph Smith, Ronald McNeil, and Scarlett Hall," and presented sworn testimony from several witnesses who said they had seen or heard the messages or conversations about them. Smith read a copy of the message into the record as evidence during his opening.

The board heard testimony from Mayor Willie Burnett and several residents who said they overheard or later saw evidence of communications linked to the clerk. Subpoenaed town clerk Jackie Cooper acknowledged sending messages to two people from her personal phone and said she composed the texts while on a short break in the town hall building, telling the board, "I got up, went into the bathroom, and that's when I made the text." Cooper denied sending some of the additional names alleged by witnesses.

Chair Linda DeBourad framed the legal question for the board: whether a town employee, while on duty at the town hall and while voting was taking place, unlawfully used position or influence to interfere with an election; whether voters relied on that influence to change their intended votes; and whether any influenced voters were numerous enough to cast doubt on the outcome. In the hearing the chair referred to state law on city employee political activity as the governing standard.

Board members said the testimony established the clerk did send at least two texts but that the hearing did not produce clear evidence that voters changed their votes as a result. The board noted the margin between Smith and the fourth‑place finisher was five votes and observed that, although three influenced votes could have altered the result, the record lacked proof that even that number of voters had been influenced. One member summarized the evidence as largely second‑hand or post‑election and said there was no direct testimony that specific voters changed their votes because of the clerk's message.

Based on that analysis, a board member moved to find that there was not substantial evidence of an election‑law violation, irregularity or misconduct sufficient to conclude the results were swayed and to dismiss the protest. The board adopted the motion by unanimous voice vote; the chair directed the clerk to reflect that the vote was unanimous and the protest was dismissed.

The hearing record shows witnesses who said they received or later saw the messages and a clerk who admitted drafting messages from her personal phone while at the town hall, but it does not show direct evidence that those messages changed how specific voters cast ballots. The board concluded the requirements for overturning or contesting the result were not met under the standard it applied.

The board adjourned at 10:53 a.m. after directing that its findings and order dismissing the protest be entered in the record.