Bryan Tyson (left) and Chris Erwin

A North Georgia Republican whose election to a state House seat was twice overturned, said a demand to pay his opponent’s legal fees is “sour grapes.”

Chris Erwin, who won a third matchup with former state Rep. Dan Gasaway on April 9, said in court papers that he also is considering whether to seek legal fees from his opponent to cover the cost of litigating the motion seeking $90,975 in legal fees.

Gasaway’s attorney, Jake Evans of the Atlanta offices of Holland & Knight, asked for fees associated with a February bench trial that overturned a second election contest between the two men. Senior Superior Court Judge David Sweat determined that four votes in the race were illegally cast and stripped Erwin of his new legislative office. Erwin won the race by two votes.

Erwin appealed Sweat’s ruling. But on Monday, his counsel—Bryan Tyson of the Atlanta office of Taylor English Duma—dismissed the appeal after the Georgia secretary of state certified Erwin the winner of the third race. Erwin won the April 9 contest by more than 3,000 votes.

Gasaway, who was seeking his fourth term as a state representative, didn’t ask for legal fees stemming from his first successful challenge of last year’s Republican primary for state House District 28. A jury voided the primary election last September after determining that at least 74 voters were disenfranchised after Erwin won the race by 67 votes.

Evans asked for legal fees after Erwin and the Habersham County elections board, where most of the voting irregularities occurred, refused to agree to a second do-over election. Evans said in his fee motion that, after the second election, he presented Erwin and the Habersham election officials with evidence of multiple suspected illegal votes by individuals who no longer lived in the district. Evans said he also warned that, if Gasaway overturned the election a second time, he intended to ask the court for legal fees and expenses.

The contested House district includes part of Habersham, Banks and Stephens counties. No Democrat or independent candidate entered the race, so the primary winner also won the election.

In court papers filed Thursday, Tyson objected to any fee award. Gasaway “continues to litigate instead of accepting the will of the people,” the motion said.

Tyson contended that evidence and legal arguments he presented during the February trial defending Erwin’s two-vote win were “more than reasonable” and “could have been reasonably accepted” by the judge. Tyson also noted that the judge determined four voters had cast illegal ballots although Evans initially challenged 68 ballots.

Tyson argued that Evans did not present evidence that all 68 challenged ballots were illegal during a second trial and that the judge rejected some of the challenges Evans offered in court. “It appeared that Mr. Gasaway—who bore the burden of proof—may not have been sure of the facts himself,” Tyson contended.

Tyson also took issue with Evans’ claim that Erwin’s “obstinacy caused a protracted four-day hearing.”

Gasaway “petitioned to overturn an election that was presumed valid,” he added. “Despite his obvious sour grapes, Mr. Gasaway has not submitted any evidence that Rep.-elect Erwin unnecessarily expanded the proceedings, harassed the defendants, or otherwise engaged in improper conduct.”

Tyson also said that, even though the presiding judge ultimately rejected his arguments defending the second election, “The question for this court is not ultimately whether Mr. Gasaway’s interpretation of the law was correct. The only question is whether the legal arguments offered by Rep.-elect Erwin could reasonably have been accepted by the court.”

On Monday, Evans defended Gasaway’s fee motion. “If there is any case where an award of attorneys’ fees is warranted, it is this case,” he said. “Two votes decided the election. They admitted one vote was illegal. The remaining three illegal votes were affirmed by live undisputed witness testimony, and clear Georgia law.”

Evans argued that Tyson’s contention that voters who moved from the district but remained in the county could still vote in their old precinct if they had not notified the election board of their move could allow voters “to perpetually vote illegally in elections by never updating their voter registration and eviscerating any responsibility or accountability for local election superintendents.”

“Such a baseless interpretation is a desperate attempt to further run from doing what is right,” he said. “This has been a consistent theme throughout these cases, and Mr. Gasaway should not be left holding the bag for errors and stubbornness committed by others.”