Court accepts county canvass of Nov. 4 constitutional amendment election

Wilson County Court · November 17, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The court voted to accept the county canvass of the Nov. 4 constitutional amendment election after a motion by Commissioner Akins. The election administrator read county totals for several state propositions, and the meeting later adjourned at 09:07.

The court voted to accept the results of the Nov. 4 constitutional amendment election as presented by the election administrator after a motion by Commissioner Akins and a second from Commissioner Perdola.

The acceptance formalizes the county-level canvass of statewide questions. Speaker 2, the election administrator, read county totals for several state propositions; the transcript clearly records Proposition 3 at 5,106 for and 890 against (total 5,999), Proposition 16 at 5,250 for and 764 against (total 6,014), and Proposition 17 at 4,600 for and 1,334 against (total 5,934). Speaker 2 also read other totals that were not clearly recorded in the available transcript.

Speaker 1 recorded the motion and called the voice vote. Speaker 1 said, "Ayes have it. Motion passes." After a brief procedural pause—during which Speaker 1 rescinded an earlier adjournment motion to address outstanding items—the court confirmed whether any documents needed signatures before adjourning.

Commissioner King later moved to adjourn; the motion was seconded (the transcript shows the seconder spelled both as 'Perdola' and 'Perdolos' in different places). Speaker 1 called the voice vote, declared the meeting adjourned, and noted the time as 09:07.

No formal roll-call vote by individual member name was recorded in the transcript for the acceptance motion; the meeting record in the transcript reflects voice voting and the administrator's reading of totals. The transcript does not provide the full set of proposition totals for every item mentioned; several were read but were not clearly captured in the recording.