Inos says Atalig’s election protest is time-barred

Rota Mayor-elect Joseph Songao Inos has moved to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Vicente Manglona Atalig, his closest rival in the Rota mayoral race.

Through his son, attorney Perry B. Inos, Joseph Inos, asserted that Atalig’s election challenge failed to comply with mandatory jurisdictional time limitations.

In the alternative, Joseph Inos asked the Superior Court to issue a judgment in his favor and co-defendants Commonwealth Election Commission and its commissioners.

“The time constraints for contesting an election result, moreover, are clear and unequivocal, and the deadline for filing an election contest based on ballots rejected for lack of a discernible postmark has long since passed,” Perry Inos said, adding that Atalig, for whatever reason, chose to delay filing his election protest.

Atalig, through counsel Stephen C. Woodruff, has sought a court action to count the 72 unopened ballot envelopes. He 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, of the Republican Party, also named as a real party in interest co-defendant Joseph Inos, of the Covenant, who received 11 more votes according to the CEC tabulation.

In a motion to dismiss or in the alternative a request for summary judgment, Perry Inos said at the heart of this election contest is Atalig’s insistence that absentee ballots which either failed to display postmarks or contained postmarks that were plainly unintelligible or indiscernible should have nevertheless been opened and counted in tabulating the results of the Nov. 5, 2005 election.

Contrary to Atalig’s contentions, Perry Inos said, CNMI election law, as consistently implemented by well-established and consistently applied CEC procedures, prohibits the Commission from counting any absentee ballot that fails on its face to establish it was not postmarked any later than the date of the election.

“Because the 72 absentee ballots at issue could not, as a matter of law, meet this criterion, the Commission correctly excluded them,” said the lawyer, stressing that as a result Atalig lacks sufficient grounds to contest the election.

Perry Inos said undisputed material facts establish that although plaintiff learned of the reason for the rejected ballots as early as Nov. 19, 2005, he delayed filing his complaint until Dec. 2, 2005.

“Because the complaint was filed more than seven days after learning of the reasons for the ballots’ rejection, it is untimely and should be dismissed,” he stressed.

Perry Inos cited that all eight commissioners reviewed each of the 72 envelopes with magnifying glasses.

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

The lawyer said pursuant to a statute any complaint to contest an election must be filed within seven days after discovery of the fact giving rise to the challenge.

He said no complaint may be filed over 15 days after the declaration of official election results.

Perry Inos said overwhelming evidence reflects that as early as Nov. 19, 2005, Atalig knew that the 72 absentee ballots had not been counted because they “were never opened or tabulated by the CEC on account of lack or illegibility of a postmark.”

The lawyer said not only was the counting televised live by MCV, but Atalig’s representatives were present throughout the counting of all absentee ballots.

He said that on Nov. 23, 2005, Atalig caused his legal counsel to complain to CEC by letter of these very same facts.

In putting off the filing of the lawsuit until Dec. 2, 2005, therefore, Atalig plainly chose to file his election contest more than seven days after learning of the facts allegedly supporting his challenge, Perry Inos said.

The lawyer said CEC properly excluded all absentee ballots that either failed to display a postmark or contained a postmark that was unintelligible.

Perry Inos said the statutory requirement of a postmark not only ensures that only individuals voting on or before election day will be permitted to vote, but it also prevents any person from submitting a ballot after learning of election results.

The Attorney General’s Office, on behalf of CEC and its commissioners, earlier also moved to drop the lawsuit, asserting that it is meritless and that the election challenge is too late.