By Mar-Vic Cagurangan
Variety News Staff

REPUBLICAN Gov. Felix P. Camacho is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to junk former Congressman Robert Underwood’s petition for clarification on the 2006 gubernatorial election, saying the legal issues raised by the defeated Democratic candidate have long been settled and do not warrant any reexamination.
Camacho also dismissed Underwood’s claim that the question on the definition of “overvotes,” if not resolved now, would result in another electoral crisis in the next gubernatorial election in 2010.
Through his attorney David Mair, Camacho said Underwood’s warning of an electoral crisis was “nothing but speculation.”
“It is admittedly possible that an aggrieved candidate could seek to litigate this issue again at some point. However, such eventuality is far less likely than petitions would have the court suppose,” Mair stated in the brief submitted to the nation’s highest court.
Mair pointed out that no crisis ensued in the aftermath of the 2006 gubernatorial election. “There is likewise no reason to suppose that any future electoral challenge could not be effectively managed by the local and federal courts sitting in Guam,” he added.
The case stemmed from conflicting interpretations of the terms “votes cast” and “overvotes.”
Underwood and his running mate, former Sen. Frank B. Aguon Jr., challenged the Guam Election Commission’s decision to declare Camacho and his running mate, Mike Cruz — now the lieutenant governor — winners in the Nov. 7, 2006 election.
The Underwood-Aguon team argued that the Republican team failed to get the majority votes.
In December last year, the Guam Supreme Court upheld the Republican victory, agreeing with the Guam Election Commission’s decision to throw out 504 overvotes. The court held that the 504 voters who “overvoted” did not express their will in deciding who should be the next governor and lieutenant governor.
“The Guam Supreme Court’s ruling was consistent with the overwhelming weight of authority from state and federal courts around the country that have addressed similar issues,” Mair stated in the brief.
“The Guam Supreme Court did not decide an important question of federal law that has not been but should be settled by this court; it merely made a routine application on the authorities and precedent from this court in upholding a Guam statute based on its plain terms.”