By now, you have heard the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Henry C. Whitehorn, Sr.’s request for an appeal of the new election ordered by retired Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bleich, which was subsequently affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Both sheriff candidates issued written public statements, following the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Candidate John Nickelson said it was a “victory for democracy in Caddo Parish.” After all, Justice Crichton, wrote in his concurring opinion (regarding the denial of Whitehorn’s appeal) that “(w)hen a court is presented with proven errors, even when no candidate is responsible for those errors, it is compelled to act and uphold our Election Code.” Justice Genovese also authored a concurring opinion in the denial of the appeal and wrote that “this election was not a free and fair election.”

Pretty straightforward language, right? And it provides a sense of hope that we have remained, as John Adams once wrote, “a nation of laws, and not of men.” This is the principle, of course, that government should be based on clearly written laws, consented to by those to be governed by them, and not on the unpredictable will of one man or even a few men.

But that doesn’t make much sense to candidate Whitehorn, apparently, or at least in this matter because, following the Louisiana Supreme Court decision, Whitehorn says a vote is a vote is a vote, so to speak. He says that “the person with the most votes wins, even if that’s by a thousand votes or by one vote.”

Well, first all, that’s terribly disingenuous because if there was a margin of a thousand votes here, the district court judge would likely have never ordered a new election, and that assumes Nickelson would have even contested the election results, in the first place (if it were a thousand vote margin instead of a single vote margin).

Second, and most concerning, is Whitehorn’s argument that the “ends justify the means” or the notion that no matter how a candidate came to receive more votes on election day (even if illegally), he should be declared the winner.

But Whitehorn is looking at it all wrong, and Justice Genovese seemingly is answering Whitehorn directly in his concurring opinion, saying that “(i)n a two-candidate race, the mere fact that one candidate ends up with one or more votes than his opponent, without regard or consideration given to proven fraud and unqualified voters casting ballots, does not equate to a just and fair election under our law and jurisprudence. A just and fair election can only be had when one candidate wins by a majority vote of qualified electors.”

Some may say Whitehorn’s claim, that he would not have contested the election results if the vote count reflected one less vote for him than Nickelson, is not what Whitehorn really believes, and that he’s just posturing; it’s just campaign rhetoric. Some might also say, “C’mon, you know he doesn’t believe that a candidate should win an election without regard to whether the votes cast for that candidate were legal ones.”

Okay. I got you. But how would we ever know that, when his public statements indicate the contrary?

Aside from the concern that Whitehorn believes the “ends justify the means,” consider that his public statement also expresses disdain for our judiciary, saying that Nickelson was being “misleading.” The implication here is that the judges were misled – from the district to the appellate to the Louisiana Supreme Court – the judges were just too inept to figure out they were being duped.

But how anyone applying to be the chief law enforcement officer in our parish by insulting the courts and then doesn’t respect the rule of law enough to take a stand, and ensure our Election Code is upheld, whether that is for 1,000 votes or just a single vote cast illegally, is beyond me.

And yes, Mr. Whitehorn, one vote matters. You may say you wouldn’t have fought over one little vote in this election, if the roles had been reversed, and you would have conceded the election, despite the illegalities now confirmed by the courts.

But you see, the people need a sheriff who will fight for us, in small matters, and in large ones. As it says in Luke 16:10-14, “Whoever can be trusted with small things can also be trusted with big things.”

And with a $40 million budget, a 1,500 bed correctional center, 650 employees, almost 7,000 “911”-calls and the safety and security of 237,000 residents in the balance, a new sheriff who doesn’t sweat that one little vote cast illegally in a one-vote margin election, but would rather look the other way, may just not be the new sheriff we need, at all.

Louis R. Avallone is a Shreveport businessman, attorney, and author of Bright Spots, Big Country, What Makes America Great. He is also a former aide to U.S. Representative Jim McCrery and Trump elector. Follow him on Facebook, on Twitter @louisravallone or by e-mail at louisavallone@mac.com, and on American Ground Radio weeknights from 6 – 7 PM on 101.7FM/710AM KEEL in Shreveport, or weeknights from 9 – 10 PM on 96.5FM KPEL in Lafayette, or weeknights from 8 – 9 p.m. on 990 AM WGSO in New Orleans, and streaming live on iHeart.com, on iTunes, at americangroundradio.com and in over 40 markets across the country.