Huntington City Council upholds November results, declines to disqualify two winners

Huntington City Council voted Dec. 16 to uphold the Nov. 2024 election results and to allow Jason Arthur (District 1) and Stacy Jo Holly (District 9) to take their seats after challengers alleged the two winners failed to timely and accurately file campaign finance reports.

Sasha Chapman, an unsuccessful District 1 candidate, told the council she and co-contestant Carl Eastham had filed a challenge ‘‘not based on any personal grievances, but on principle of fairness, transparency, adherence to the laws that govern our democratic process.’’ Chapman alleged both Arthur and Holly ‘‘failed to meet the most basic legal requirements for their candidacy, filing timely, accurate, and complete campaign finance reports,’’ and she cited reports filed just days before the general election.

Chapman pointed to specific errors she said appeared in the filings, saying, ‘‘Miss Holly's reports contain negative balances, which are prohibited under campaign finance regulations. Her first quarter report, for instance, showed a negative balance of $419.76.’’ She also alleged Mr. Arthur’s filings listed only payments to himself as a vendor.

Both successful candidates addressed the council. Jason Arthur acknowledged he was late filing his primary report and said he filed on Oct. 31; he told the council, ‘‘All my financial statements are complete, accurate and part of the public record,’’ and added, ‘‘The people have spoken. We held a fair election.’’ Stacy Jo Holly likewise said she filed on Nov. 1, that her statements are complete, and that ‘‘The election was fair, and the will of the people is clear.’’

City Attorney Scott Damron presented an affidavit from Lisa Adkins, the assistant city clerk and elections official, which said in part, ‘‘I did not send a letter to Jason Arthur by certified mail informing him that he had until the 84th/80th day preceding the general election to file his primary financial report. I did not send a letter to Stacy Jo Holly by certified mail informing her that she had until the 84th/80th day preceding the general election to file her primary financial report.’’ The affidavit also stated Adkins ‘‘did not remove’’ either candidate from the ballot prior to the general election.

After a closed deliberation in executive session, the council returned to public session and took a roll-call vote on the challengers’ request. A motion ‘‘that these candidates not be disqualified’’ (moved from the floor and seconded) carried on recorded votes: Bailey Yes; Jackson Yes; Jones No; Layman Yes; Rumbaugh Yes; Shockley Yes; Sweeney Yes; Walling Yes. The chair announced, ‘‘Motion carries.’’

Council counsel read findings and conclusions of law, noting that although the candidates failed to file the required reports by the reported deadline (counsel recorded Arthur’s delinquent filings as submitted 10/31/2024 and Holly’s on 11/01/2024), the elections official’s affidavit established that the notice required under the cited West Virginia legislative rule (WV CSR 1 53-51 series) had not been sent. The written conclusion read into the record stated, in part, that because notice was not provided and disqualification would deprive successful candidates and party executive committees of an opportunity to cure or fill vacancies, the council ‘‘declares the results of the November to be lawful’’ and that Arthur and Holly ‘‘are not disqualified from holding respectively the District 1 Huntington City Council seat and the District 9 Huntington City Council seat.’’

The council noted that challengers retain the right to appeal to circuit court. No private votes or formal decisions were taken during the executive session. With the vote concluded, the chair made closing remarks thanking participants and emphasizing the importance of reviewing campaign finance processes; the meeting then adjourned.

What the council decided: after weighing the challengers’ allegations of late and inaccurate filings and the elections official’s affidavit saying required certified-mail notices were not sent, the council declined to disqualify the two successful candidates and certified the November results.

Next steps: The challengers may appeal the council’s decision to the circuit court; the council did not order any immediate administrative sanctions or removals.