Jameson challenges election results in state lawsuit

Moore defeated Jameson by more than 2,000 votes in Marshall County, while Jameson carried Calloway County by less than 300.

Jameson was ordered removed from the bench for the remainder of his term and disqualified from serving in that position for the eight-year term beginning in 2023 after the Judicial Conduct Commission found him in violation of various ethical violations. Jameson appealed that decision and remains on the bench.

One of Jameson’s central objections involves what he claims were misleading statements from Moore that convinced voters either not to vote in the election at all or to vote for someone other than Jameson because they believed he had been removed from the ballot or votes for him would not count.

He also argues Moore was involved in a plot to use the JCC to hurt his election chances.

Jameson claims to have reasonable belief that Moore “or someone on her behalf” may have violated prohibitions against receiving donations from corporations or individuals in a special relationship to herself, or some form of bribery in exchange for securing votes.

Those violations, according to statute, are grounds for nullifying an election. That statute specifies that, if the contestant (the loser of the election challenging the result in court) is found to have violated those provisions, the challenge is dismissed, but if the contestee (the winner being challenged) is found to have violated them while the contestant has not, the election is voided.

Jameson also relies on a statute that states when “there has been such fraud, intimidation, bribery, or violence in the conduct of the election that neither contestant nor contestee can be judged to have been fairly elected, the Circuit Court, or an appellate court, on appeal, may adjudge that there has been no election.“

While fraud, intimidation, bribery and violence are not defined in the statute, Jameson appears to argue that Moore’s alleged misleading statements, alleged involvement in the JCC “strategy” and alleged harassment and intimidation regarding campaign signs, among other claims of misconduct constitute such activity.

Jameson has himself been accused of meddling in campaign signs.

A recent motion in Marshall County Circuit Court asked for Jameson to recuse himself from sitting on a criminal case because the defendant in that case claimed Jameson had called the defendant’s landlord and expressed disapproval that the the defendant had set up a sign supporting Moore.

Throughout the lawsuit, Jameson dates the election as happening on Dec. 8, and claims some of Moore’s ads in question aired on Dec. 7 and Dec. 8.

On multiple occasions in the suit, Jameson takes issue with the alleged conduct of Moore supporters.

He also issues a strong objection to statements made regarding domestic violence.

While claiming “immaturity” regarding an incident in the late 1990s that saw him spend some time in jail for violating a protective order, Jameson denies what he calls “exaggerated claims … regarding Judge Jameson being some terrible monster that physically abused every female within reach for over 20 years” including his wife.

Moore on Thursday called Jameson’s claims against her in the lawsuit “blatantly untrue, every bit of it.”

She denied any involvement in the alleged plot to use the JCC and denied any improper conduct in regard to yard signs.

Moore also pointed out that, while she’s filed all of her financial disclosures to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance (KREF) for the primary and general elections, Jameson hasn’t filed anything since his post-primary disclosures.

According to KREF records, Jameson reported raising $43,798.37 through June 20, and spending $8,524.36, ending the primary campaign with a balance of $35,274.01. No records exist online for the general election.

Moore reported receipts and expenses of $41,350.00 each during the primary. For the general she reported receipts of $39,082.59 and expenses of $34,744.08.

Jameson Thursday evening blamed his lack of disclosures on a technical issue whereby filing information was sent to the wrong email address, that no one has access to. He said in a message that he’s working with KREF to solve the problem and would like for the finances to be public to show the “very strong support” the campaign received.

Jameson claims that even if the evidence of Moore violating the statutes isn’t readily apparent, “no requirement of some high standard of evidence” exists when it comes to fairness actions like election challenges.

Statues require such challenges to be handled “as soon as practicable,” taking “precedence over all other cases.”

As Jameson is currently the sitting judge who would preside over the case, Chief Regional Circuit Judge Rene Williams will attempt to assign the case to a circuit judge within the region, according to a spokesperson with the Administrative Office of the Courts.

If no sitting judges are available, Williams will be asked to appoint a retired judge.

Complicating matters is Jameson’s appeal of the JCC disqualification currently pending before the Kentucky Supreme Court.

The segment of the commission’s order removing Jameson for the current term will essentially be rendered moot if the appeal has not been decided before Moore’s scheduled investiture.

If the state’s high court allows the disqualification to stand, Jameson would not be allowed to run in a new election or sit as judge once elected even if the election were to be nullified and a new contest held.

Jameson’s original deadline to file his brief in the appeal passed on Monday, but his attorney, Rick Walter, filed a motion for an extension to file that brief until this Monday, Dec. 12.

JCC attorney Jeffrey Mando said Thursday he would not object to that motion, considering the volume of the record in the case.