WOODVILLE &045;&045; Attorneys on both sides of a disputed Wilkinson County supervisor election agree a Hinds County judge appointed last fall to hear the case miscounted the votes in her ruling.

But is the discrepancy a mere clerical error or grounds to order a new election? And does the ruling contain other errors?

The state Supreme Court will answer those questions as it handles an appeal filed last month by former Wilkinson County District 2 Supervisor Kirk Smith.

The Wilkinson County Democratic Executive Committee named Smith the winner of its Aug. 26 runoff election by an 11-vote margin, 510-499.

Smith’s opponent, Richard Hollins, contested the results of the election, claiming absentee and affidavit ballots were improperly rejected by poll workers, among other allegations.

After hearing testimony in the case in October, Hinds County Chancellor Denise Owens awarded 20 additional votes to Hollins and six more votes to Smith, declaring Hollins the winner by three votes, 519-516. But Smith noted in his appeal that Owens only documented 17 votes for Hollins in her Oct. 27 opinion. By that number, the election would have resulted in a tie with both candidates receiving 516 votes.

In a cross-appeal filed March 1, Hollins said Owens failed to carry the names of four voters from page 12 to page 13 of her opinion.

Terming the discrepancy a &uot;scrivener’s error,&uot; Hollins said the high court should allow Owens to correct her opinion. Hollins claimed the correct vote tally should be 520-516 in his favor. But Smith’s appeal said Owens’ miscount is a moot issue because Owens made other errors in her October judgment.

Smith said Owens validated absentee and affidavit ballots that were not notarized or witnessed in accordance with state law.

In the runoff election, pollworkers rejected 59 absentee ballots at the District 2 precinct in Woodville. Smith also claimed Owens erred by counting ballots from voters who, according to testimony, did not reside in District 2. Hollins argued that some voters were properly registered to vote but their names were left off the precinct books after the county’s recent redistricting. Hollins also contended the results of the November general election make Smith’s appeal moot. Hollins took office Jan. 1.

Natchez attorneys John R. Junkin II and Robert C. Latham and Woodville attorney David S. Crawford represent Smith. On Tuesday, Junkin said the team was preparing a response to Hollins’ cross-appeal. &uot;We have 14 days to reply to it. We’re in the process of putting that together now. That will be the last of the filings,&uot; Junkin said. The state Supreme Court granted Smith an expedited appeal, but Junkin was unsure when the court would rule on the case.