Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Canvass topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Emerald City Council certifies June 7 runoff despite public allegations of county irregularities
Summary
At a June 16 special meeting in Amarillo, the Emerald City Council accepted certified returns declaring David Prescott elected to Place 3 and approved the canvass 2–0 after public commenters alleged county livestream failures, uncounted provisional ballots and improper mailings; city staff said counties certified the results and provisional ballots were qualified.
The Emerald City Council met June 16, 2025, in a special session to canvass the results of the June 7 runoff and voted 2–0 to accept the county-certified returns, declaring David Prescott the winner for council member, place three.
Public commenters urged the council to pause certification, saying county procedures compromised the integrity of the count. "I'm here today with one simple ask. Do not canvas the results for this runoff today," said Claudet Smith, who alleged Randall County's surveillance camera in the tabulation room "was pointed at the ceiling for days" and that the county later turned cameras off during counting. Smith also claimed discrepancies in provisional-ballot reporting and that some mail ballots were sent using late applications, citing Texas Election Code sections 84.007 and 86.0015.
City Secretary Miss Coggins told the council she had spoken with Randall County election administrator Shannon Lackey, who reported the county's livestream went offline after a citizen call at 4 p.m.; Coggins said the underlying camera recordings exist and that county staff reconnected the live feed. She said the county's ballot board met and qualified three provisional ballots during early voting and that those votes were included in the unofficial totals the city received.
Council members asked when the council should raise such procedural questions with county officials and whether the city could decline the certified returns. City Manager staff responded that the counties had provided certified returns and that the city typically assumes the counties have fulfilled statutory responsibilities. City Attorney Mr. McWills advised the council that the city's charter (page 34, section 9) requires election procedures to follow state law, meaning certified county returns are presumptively valid; he said a candidate or concerned party would need to pursue legal remedies if they believed state law had been violated.
Miss Coggins presented Resolution 06-16-25-1, which the resolution text states "canvases the returns for the runoff election held on the 7th day of June 2025," noting 9,281 valid ballots cast and that David Prescott received a majority for council member place three. After brief discussion, a council member moved "that we accept the votes as canvased," another seconded, and the council approved the motion by voice vote, 2–0.
The council's action accepted the counties' certified tallies; staff noted the canvass is time‑sensitive and that the city was approaching the statutory canvass deadline (the meeting occurred on day 10 of the canvass window). The meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m.
What remains unresolved from the public comments is whether county procedures produced any legally significant errors: commenters alleged missing or misreported provisional ballots, livestream failures and that some mail ballots were distributed using late or invalid applications. City staff reported that the county says recordings exist and that the three provisional ballots were qualified; the transcript records no county official testifying at the meeting and no formal evidence presented to change the certified returns. The board took no further formal action other than approving the canvass.
