Judge Richard Bruegemann of the Boone County Circuit Court has declined to take up a restraining order request that would have prevented the winners of the election for the Union City Commission in November from taking office next year.
He also denied a motion from the Boone County clerk to strike a challenge to the local November election, effectively allowing said challenge to proceed in court.
Based on his interpretation of the law, Bruegemann said, the court did not have the authority to toss a certified election result and, therefore, could not grant either motion.
“I respect very well what James Madison said in the ‘Federalist Papers,’ and that is a judge’s duty is to rule according to what the law is, not what he thinks it ought to be,” Bruegemann said, “and I shouldn’t stick my finger in the air and try to decide what I think would be the best way to fix this when the statutes don’t give me that authority.”
Bruegemann made his decisions at a hearing on Monday. It was one of the few hearings on the docket for that day, given its proximity to the winter holidays.
The hearing was called following a request for a restraining order current City Commission Doug Bine and his legal team filed on Dec. 27, which would have effectively prevented the winners of the election – John Mefford, Eric Dulaney and Brian Garner – from taking office. Mefford, Bine and Garner all attended Monday’s hearing.
Monday’s hearing was the latest in a series of legal proceedings that stem from reports of wrong ballot distributions at two Union precincts. The elections that were affected included the race for the city commission seats and the medical cannabis ballot question. Bine, who leveled the election challenge, lost his bid for reelection in November. Jeremy Ramage, who won in November, has since abdicated his seat on the commission for 2025.
Following reports from voters, the County Clerk Justin Crigler’s office filed a petition for a recount on Nov. 8. Bruegemann rejected this as “futile” for determining the scale of the disenfranchisement that may have occurred and later granted Bine leave to levy a challenge against the election. The Board of Elections certified the election results on Nov. 15.
Bine filed an official election challenge on Dec. 4. Then, on Dec. 9, the clerk filed a motion to strike Bine’s challenge, arguing that it failed to follow proper legal protocols. The motion to strike argued that Bine needed to file a whole new election contest lawsuit rather than piggybacking on the current case that began on Nov. 8. The clerk also requested postponing evidence discovery until Bruegemann could rule on the strike.
Bine’s team then filed their own motion, accusing the board of “forum shopping” (i.e., trying to move the proceedings to a venue that would be more favorable). Bine’s team also pointed out that the board failed to advertise the meeting where they certified the election results, arguing it violated Kentucky’s open meetings laws.
Bruegemann declined to rule on Bine’s election challenge at a hearing on Dec. 17., stating he was unsure of the proper legal procedures, given the election problems seemingly arose from error, rather than fraud, bribery or graft. He did, however, grant Bine’s request to stay evidence discovery. Bine’s team then filed the restraining order request on Dec. 27. The clerk’s legal team filed a response the morning of the hearing.
At Monday’s hearing, the question for Brueggemann was whether or not the Boone County Circuit Court had the power to grant Bine’s request by tossing the election certification. Breuggeman did not believe the court had that power, and the lawyers’ arguments before Brueggemann focused on whether legal precedent would grant the court power to approve Bine’s restraining order.
“I do not think this court has that authority, right or wrong,” Bruegemann said. “If a certificate is issued, I cannot order it to be set aside by judicial fiat.”
Bine’s attorney, Steve Megerle, argued that the county board of elections’ failure to advertise the certification amounted to meeting illegally.
“So our argument here, judge, is not necessarily related to the issues with the election but the process and the procedure and the likely open meetings [law] violations of the Board of Elections by not noticing a meeting,” Megerle said. “It was a special meeting. They’re a public agency of the commonwealth, and it was not a regular meeting, therefore the certificates are voidable.”
Jeff Mando, the attorney for the clerk, rebutted this argument by claiming the certification process is a largely administrative action and not subject to the same rules as other official meetings. Mando especially took issue with Megerle’s contention the certification meeting was “illegal.”
“These certificates of election, your honor, there’s no requirement that a local board of elections vote on these certificates to approve them,” Mando said. “They’ve cited no authority that that’s required. There’s no case law authority that says that’s required. There’s no statute that says that’s required. It’s a ministerial, almost ceremonial task. The results of the election are the results of the elections as tabulated on the night of the election.”
Both sides pulled on precedent in case law to make their arguments, and Bruegemann recessed the hearing twice to allow the sides to gather more case law citations and give himself more time to consider the relevant precedent.
In the end, Bruegemann agreed with the clerk’s line of argumentation that the certification was a ministerial action. He also pointed to language in Kentucky statute and case law that states “the right to contest a recount of an election in accordance with KRS chapter 120 shall not be impaired.
“That’s recited everywhere that I’ve seen it,” Bruegemann said, adding that if the court came and began issuing injunctions and requirements to other government bodies would “run amok of the law as I read it.”
Megerle made a last ditch effort to sway the judge on his request for the restraining order, but Bruegemann – although he said he was sympathetic to all of the candidates’ points of view – maintained the court did not have the authority to grant the request.
“While this is progressing through the courts, it should be resolved by those boards and those bodies and those submissions in the best manner they see fit, subject to what is very clear, loud and ringing, that the right to contest this election shall not be impaired,” Bruegemann said.
The judge then struck down both the restraining order request and the clerk’s request to strike Bine’s election challenge. Bruegemann expected to have official orders tendered before the new year, at which point the stay for evidence discovery will be lifted, and Bine’s challenge can begin in earnest.
LINK nky will report more on this situation as it develops.