AGO says Atalig’s election protest meritless, too late

Vicente Manglona Atalig’s lawsuit against the Commonwealth Election Commission, its commissioners and Rota Mayor-elect Joseph Songao Inos, is meritless and that his election challenge is too late, according to the Attorney General’s Office.

Assistant Attorney Generals James D. Livingstone and Arin Greenwood said Atalig sued CEC and its commissioners for following the dictates of the local election laws and their own well-established practices.

“The plaintiff [Atalig] cannot point to any wrongdoing by the Commission or any ‘unconstitutional’ actions,” said Livingstone and Greenwood on behalf of CEC and its commissioners.

Atalig, the closest rival of Inos in the Rota mayoralty race, has sought a court action to count the 72 unopened ballot envelopes.

Atalig sued CEC and its commissioners Miguel M. Sablan, Miranda V. Manglona, Henry S. Atalig, Frances M. Sablan, Elizabeth DLG. Aldan, Melvin B. Sablan, Jose L. Itibus, and Jose P. Kiyoshi.

Atalig, a Republican, also named Inos as a real party in interest co-defendant Inos, of the Covenant, who received 11 more votes according to the CEC tabulation.

In the defendants’ response, the government lawyers said Atalig merely makes general allegations of wrongdoing and vague references to purported constitutional rights without explanation.

“This approach cannot withstand scrutiny and it is contrary to public policy. The election has ended. The results are final,” said Livingstone and Greenwood as they moved the court to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.

The lawyers explained that the Commission received a total of 1,378 absentee ballots and found 1,227 could be counted.

The Commission, they said, counted 228 ballots related to Rota.

The commissioners determined that 150 ballots and one piece of regular mail should not be counted for various reasons.

This total includes the 72 ballots that Atalig complains, the lawyers said.

They said all eight commissioners and the executive director reviewed each of the envelopes with their naked eyes and with magnifying glasses.

Each ballot was rejected only after all eight commissioners agreed that it was impossible to read the postmark or agreed that there was no postmark,” the counsel said.

“Five commissioners acknowledged this by signing each envelope. This means that each of the 72 envelopes has the signatures of five commissioners and the reason for rejection on each envelope,” they said.

The Commission’s decision to reject the 72 ballots for lack of a postmark or lack of a discernible postmark was consistent with decisions the Commission has made in the past and also consistent with a recommendation that the Public Auditor Michael Sablan made at the time, according to Livingstone and Greenwood.