It seems sometime Monday we will have a decision on the ballots that were contested in the re-count for Board of Health.
Lost in the debate over a new election at times is the fact that there were two contested ballots. I have been a bit guilty of that myself. The two ballots are crucial however. The two ballots will decide the issue.
Those two ballots are where the matter should be decided in my humble opinion. I think it will be on these two ballots that the matter of a new election will rest, and just on those two ballots.
In reality, I think it comes down to actually just one contested ballot.
Of the two, one ballot has the oval for the "write in" line filled in. This ballot was challenged (had been ruled a blank). The attorney for Wethington had stated it must be for him because it was in the box under his name.
Just as reasonable an explanation is the fact some voter had the good judgment to decide to cast a ballot following the "none of the above" sentiment. It is know in some circles as an intentional blank. A vote cast to express displeasure with the choices on the ballot.
My opinion is that ballot goes to no one.
The other contested ballot has an oval like mark on a horizontal level with the oval next to DeTerra's name. This is the ballot in my opinion that decides whether we have a new election. This is the ballot everyone should have been casting there energies and attention on.
Let's deal with the other issues for a moment.
There is a presumption in this Commonwealth that public officials are honest and discharge their duties with good faith and integrity, i.e. ifs and buts may get you candy and nuts, but aren't enough for a new election. You need more than lack of proper procedure. I would be very surprised that absent any hard evidence of fraud, the Court will not presume fraud occurred as a result of the procedure not being followed. See a prior post "What's the Bell Curve?" for the cases cited therein and look them up and read them if you like.
As to the remaining challenged ballot, this is in fact where there may be an issue. The mark isn't in the oval, doesn't in anyway cross the oval (from what I remember of the picture of it). There is a statute that talks about marking an "x" in the box (clearly enacted when we had hand ballots only). Yet one can assume it has some validity in the computer age).
I can see the strong argument for intent to DeTerra.
I can also see the strong argument that since it is outside the box (oval) it is impossible to judge intent.
What I can also see is no one should be writing off the possibility of a new election, for the correct reason. Unfortunately, if one is needed for the correct reason, a bunch of people are not going to see it that way.
It is a one vote margin I think. Not sure anymore, all the different counts have me a bit confused.
A new election would be very interesting on several fronts.
One point to note, a new election, based on a decision simply concerning the ballots in question would involve only the Board of Health, as the only ballots contested are for that particular race. This is another reason the Court will be reluctant to rule on the what ifs. If the "what ifs" matter to invalidate the ballots for that race, the same have to matter for every single race.
Not a real issue in my mind. Could be entirely wrong there, but if so, so be it.
Back to the Board of Health, if just one ballot shifts, we have a tie.
Ties have been ruled to be a "failure to elect". Chapter 41, Section 10 provides in part:
If, at an election of town officers for which official ballots are used, there is a failure to elect a town officer, he may be elected at an adjourned or succeeding meeting; and ballots shall be prepared and furnished for such meeting, containing the nominations already made and such as may subsequently be made for the office.
The proceedings in such election and the qualifications of a person to be elected or appointed in case of failure to elect, refusal to accept or vacancy shall be the same as in an original election.
You are all smart enough to figure out what that means, right?
The most interesting aspect of a new race, for me anyway, will be whether people actually show up to the polls to express the same feelings I have been hearing expressed all across town.
I have to tell you, the fact that there may a very legitimate reason why a new election will have to be held will be lost on those people. It will be lost because that very legitimate reason has been buried under an avalanche of rhetoric that really has been cast about with no evidence being given.
As always though, it does come down to people actually doing what they say they are going to do. Heck if one of the candidates could have made sure just two of the many people who I am sure said they were going to vote for them, but didn't show up at the polls, actually voted we wouldn't be in the middle of this "process" (terribly written sentence I know).
Who said we are getting too old for fun int the sun!
Enough for today. Be safe.
On Monday morning the judge will rule only on the two ballots question. This is the only ruling that will take place Monday morning. The ruling could very well determine a new election. The BOH seat would be vacated with a new election in its place. That's it a new election happens.
ReplyDeleteIn the event of no tie and no new election here's what happens:
There is a second half to the litigation in Superior Court. The Massachusetts Secretary of State is looking into the possibility of multiple errors in the election process that took place. If the election is determined for one person or the other on Monday and not a tie or new election then additional information can be added to the hearing after the ruling.
The Superior Court judge depending on the outcome of his ruling Monday morning could quickly within days be looking at the entire election process. The judge at a later date could then make a second ruling based on information presented after Monday to the Superior Court