After a very long day at Newton North High School, City Clerk David Olsen informed those who stayed to the bitter end that Chris Markiewicz has defeated write in candidate Allison Sharma by 7 votes for the Ward 4 city council seat. Allison now has the option to challenge the result in court.
Largely at issue were a number of ballots which included Allison Sharma in the ward 4 at large race or another race and either left the ward 4 ward councilor race blank or also voted for Chris Markiewicz.
More to come soon, but just wanted to let everyone know the result and also to thank all of the volunteers, city workers, and the indefatigable David Olsen for their hard work and patience today.
Congratulations to Allison. I never expected a write-in candidate to come so close. Timing feels reminiscent of Bush v. Gore.
I wish I could have observed more of the recount, but alas, I was working, and if I hadn’t been working I would have been out pruning trees to beat the last yard waste collections, which is what I’m about to do today.
I, too, was reminded of Bush v. Gore. First when I heard they were counting votes cast in the wrong race, and I thought, what about those voters confused by the butterfly ballot? Then, when I arrived at NNHS around 9:30, somewhat amazed that the recount was still going on, and learned that Sharma’s attorney was Dennis Newman. I didn’t recognize the face, but remembered the name from the Tsongas presidential campaign — he was national field director for Paul Tsongas in 1992, and later worked for Gore on the Florida recount. I thought, way to bring in the big guns, I guess David Boies and Ted Olson weren’t available. And counted my blessings for not being in such a close race as to need a recount attorney!
Newman was named as one of the top recount attorneys in Massachusetts in this 2002 article: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/a-busy-season-for-recount-lawyers/ And here he is going head to head with John Bolton, W’s future UN ambassador, during the Florida recount: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/democratic-attorney-dennis-newman-judge-charles-burton-news-photo/51972065?#democratic-attorney-dennis-newman-judge-charles-burton-chairman-if-picture-id51972065 And he must be having a busy fall, because he just finished working on the Leominster mayoral recount.
I will be interested in the legals bills as they show up in the campaign finance reports.
The recount went from about 9 am to 11 pm yesterday. First and foremost the city election and public safety professionals should be thanked, admired and praised for the great job they did running the recount. It was a very complex process and it went very smoothly. A credit to David Olson and his team of dedicated civil servants.
Congratulations to Allison Sharma as well on an incredible effort so far. Write-in campaigns are a “double black diamond” of politics and she really did an amazing job navigating this challenge.
If Chris Markiewicz is ultimately certified as the next Councilor, I hope he will have greater transparency and trust in the public process.
Yesterday, during the recount, his strategy was to challenge – try to disenfranchise? – any voter who had written in/placed a sticker for Allison in the correct place on the ballot but did not also fill in the oval bubble. So even when the intent of the voter was crystal clear – a neatly hand-written “Allison Sharma” under his name on the ballot with no bubble filled in – Markiewicz would challenge the legitimacy of the vote. Thankfully the Election Commission members unanimously overruled him each time. This approach, paired with how he ended up as the sole candidate on the ballot anyway, is concerning.
So Bryan are you saying that if someone explicitly voted for Chris, but then used their Allison sticker as a protest write-in vote against the lack of challenger to Lenny and/or Josh, then you propose that should put into question whether their explicit vote for Chris? Is that not a bit disenfranchising?
Where did the 153 vote reduction in Chris’s win come from? Where these all from voters who wrote in Allison but didn’t darken the circle? Was any credit given for stickers in other places?
“Was any credit given for stickers in other places?” Were stickers considered more legit that an actual write in vote. My understanding is that filling in the oval is how the machines read the votes. If the filling in of the oval is waived then shouldn’t ALL ballots in all races be manually checked for write in votes and if the intent is clear but the oval isn’t filled in shouldn’t those be counted as well? Seems like the decision to waive the filling in of the oval is a slippery slope.
The election rules state clearly that the oval must be filled in beside the candidates name. Intent can not be measured if the oval is not filled in. Chris did not receive a vote if the oval beside his name wasn’t marked.
Nancy Levine one of the Election commissioners allowed votes for Sharma that were cast for school committee ballots. This is clearly not allowed and suggests corruption on her part. Sharma herself should have not agreed to this illegal act. Dennis Newman also should have contested this maneuver. Nancy Levine ought to be replaced immediately on the election commission. She is a former school committee member with an obvious bias toward Allison Sharm.
Thanks to Peter Harrington for his superb guidance and council to Chris M. during a very unethical recount.
Once again big money (= expensive lawyering ), tries to buy an election.
Congratulations Chris !
@Jack: I’m not proposing anything. In the situation you just described, however, the election commission on a 3-1 vote consistently gave those ballots to Allison.
Claire – any candidate can request a recount if the race is close enough for errors t matter. Scott could probably ask for one on theory that partially filled in bubbles where missed by machines for example.
Bryan – so fully darken circle votes for Chris were changed to votes for Allison if a sticker for Allison was in place on ballot in any other race? What were the exact decisions made by the election commission?
That is kind of insane to me that a lawyer of that caliber who worked on such high profile cases was hired for this. $$$$
@Jack – No. Those were given to Chris.
Ballots where Allison was written in for other races but ward 4 ward race was left blank were given to Allison by the Election Commission. They determined that was the will of the voters.
@Jack Prior, yes I understand that anyone can request a recount. I guess that is partially my point about slippery slope. If the precedent has been set that the oval doesn’t have to be filled in doesn’t that invite many more recounts and an expectation that we don’t rely on the system reading the votes potentially add significant costs to our elections? The oval is there on the write in line. It should have to be filled in.
If this is true, I find it worrying: “Nancy Levine one of the Election commissioners allowed votes for Sharma that were cast for school committee ballots.” I can understand a voter being confused between at-large and ward, but not school committee versus councilor. Is there no written policy on how to run a re-count?
It seems that the standard they used was to say if the intent of the voter with clear then the oval didn’t have to be filled in . So what would stop in the future if a voter circleg the name of the candidate or put a big check mark next to the name of the candidate shouldn’t that vote also count since the intent was clear?Like I said slippery slopeC
@Claire: My understanding is that the case law is very clear that yes, circling, check marks, or any other clear indication that the voter intended to choose a candidate is widely accepted.
Regarding unfilled ovals – this is not Newton setting new precedent. The Secretary of the Commonwealth ‘s website makes it clear that even if the oval is not filled in, if stickers/write-ins are in the correct spot the vote should count:
“In O’Brien v. Board of Election Commissioners, 257 Mass. 332, 338-339, 153 N.E. 553, 556 (1926) the court said “that if the intent of the voter can be determined with reasonable certainty from an inspection of the ballot, in the light of the generally known conditions attendant upon the election, effect must be given to that intent… The omission of the residence … on some ballots on which the name had been written by the voters rightly was found not to invalidate such votes.” Maiewski v. Board of Registrars of Voters, 347 Mass. 681, 199 N.E. 2d 680 (1964). This includes where a voter fails to complete the vote indicator next to the write-in space—the write-in or sticker vote will still be counted.“
Sounds like common sense to me. The point of an election is to ascertain the voter’s intent, not see how well they can comply with the requirements of the voting machine hardware.
There are certainly grey areas that reasonable people can disagree on (name in the wrong place on the ballot, etc) but if a voter wrote in a candidate’s name on the ballot in the correct spot and didn’t fill in the little machine-readable dot beside it, there’s no question about who the voter was intending to vote for.
I could not attend but have a question: did the Election Commissioners describe or explain at the outset what the standard was for determining the intent of the voters?
In other words, how did they determine if a vote in the at-large race for a candidate should go to that candidate for Ward 4? Did other write-ins for at-large seats go to the person that was written in for the at-large seat?
@Bryan “circling, check marks, or any other clear indication that the voter intended to choose a candidate is widely accepted” is this limited to write in vote (sticker or written)?
Tricia’s post seems to suggest this just applies to write in candidates. I’m certainly not arguing for using technicalities to disallow votes. I’m just trying to understand the rules.
@Claire: Applies to everything.
It was fascinating to see how people fill out ballots. Some of my takeaways not related to this race but just the interesting experience of seeing full ballots:
– People love to write themselves in, and do so in strange and interesting places.
– People tend to be consistent in their mistakes. Some people use checkmarks everywhere instead of bubbling, some people wrote in candidates they like but all in the wrong places, etc.
– People are remarkably thoughtful. The different combinations of names people choose and the races people choose to leave blank vs. fill in suggest that people are doing their best to make informed choices about who they’re electing. There were clear patterns that some people seem to only choose candidates they know and/or like whereas others feel obligated to select someone in every race.
This is not my issue, but let’s take a step back folks:
1) Colleen. You consistently throw verbal grenades, and then get upset when called out on it. Please stop using terms like unethical to describe a process like this without any sort of evidence or argument. I’m calling you out on it because I think it is a very negative rhetorical strategy for our democracy and our city. If you have evidence, I would gladly listen. But since the law was clearly followed in my view, thus far it seems like all you have is your general reaction that the process went against your preferred candidate, even though he won. What exactly was unethical? Specifics, please.
2) Mary/Claire/Jack: I can fully understand your concern why any type of bubble for Chris along with a sticker for Allison shouldn’t count as a vote for Allison. I agree completely. That’s a road too far. I’m also uncomfortable with the sticker being in the wrong place being counted, unless perhaps if it was in the other ward candidates section. But consistency and a common sense should matter as well. That’s why both candidates have representation and can challenge. There is a process here.
3) Blueprintbill: I’m disappointed in your comment. “Big money tried to “buy” an election?” Umm…how? Because Allison had legal representation? You realize that someone with a specialty in legal challenges probably costs a lot less than you think, lawyers often bill by the matter, not by the hour. Even if it was a few thousand dollars to hire a lawyer for Allison, does she not deserve legal representation? This was not your typical election due to the write in campaign. Of course she had representation, as those unique issues had to be argued. Is your complaint that someone just challenged your candidate? And didn’t just back down but actually requested the recount that was her right? And took it seriously by hiring counsel? How did you then jump to money trying to “buy an election?”
4) I find it ironic that Collen and Blueprintbill are making arguments about ethics (and Julia M, I see what you did there bringing up the legal representation and ruminating about the cost…). Do folks remember how Chris ended up being the sole person on the ballot? The drop out of the incumbent at the last minute? Did we ever find out if Chris got a heads up prior to the general public about the open seat? Ethics shouldn’t just matter when you agree with the candidate. Right Collen and Blue?
5)What an incredibly close election, either way. I sincerely hopes Chris learns from this experience and becomes an excellent and devoted ward councilor. I congratulate him on his victory and wish him the best.
6) Allison, thank you for running and following the process through the end. The city is better off when these things are done the right way. I hope you run for another office someday.
For any parents out there; yesterday it was interesting to note that Sir Topham Hatt, manager of the North Western Railway and father figure to his many engines on Thomas and Friends, performed pretty well as a write-in candidate. Clearly some parents are happy to let just their 3 to 6 year old kids cast their votes. Though judging from how that rail yard runs, I am not so sure he’d be a good City Councilor.
@Shawn Fitzgibbons – I trust Mr Hatt’s votes were tossed – he isn’t a Newton resident, not even a US citizen. How many write-in votes were there for Mr Hatt?
@Jerry – yesterday was valuable learning for all of us. It turns out; if a candidate has epic popularity with pre-k children, then one vote for her/him = 100 votes. No residency requirement.
So, yesterday, there were ten tables. I saw two votes for Hatt at my table. So two votes x 10 tables = 20 votes. Multiply by the pre-k popularity quotient of 100 = 2,000 votes. He won!
Shawn:
You are causing confusion and delay.
Your truly,
Sir Hatt
I am just curious what specific ballot situations shifted the vote count.
As I understand it, Allison stickers placed in the box for the uncontested Ward 4 SCHOOL COMMITTEE race against Diana Fisher Gomberg were approved by the election commission to be switched to votes for Allison for the Ward 4 Councilor race?
The main way Allison picked up votes was because people had written her in correctly for Ward 4 Councilor but did not fill in the corresponding bubble on the ballot. So, with no oval bubble filled in, the voting machines recorded those votes as blanks. Since state law guarantees the validity of votes cast without the bubble being filled in, they were added to Allison’s total during the manual recount.
Despite clear case law, the Markiewicz campaign systematically/cynically asked the Newton Election Commission to disqualify those votes because the bubble wasn’t filled in – even when voter intent was clear. For example, Chris himself, via his lawyer, challenged votes where a person had hand-written Allison’s name AND home address in the correct spot on the ballot, but did not fill in the bubble.
Also, people wrote in Allison on other areas of the ballot – mostly for Ward four at-large – where the Newton Election Commissioners decided that those votes counted for Allison because of the perceived intent of the voter. Allison ran a clear write-in campaign. The Newton Election Commission did a good job in respecting voters’ attempts to vote for her given the complex ballot.
By the way, per comments above, I would also state my personal opinion that all Newton Election Commissioners were honorable and ethical in their decision=making process. The contested votes that occurred involved reasonable and fair disagreements. This group of four citizens represented their appointed office well and with dignity. Newton should be proud of this commission. We could only hope to have this conduct at the national level.
@Shawn, that doesn’t answer Jack’s specific question, which I believe he has asked twice
Hi – as noted above, I believe the Newton Election Commission voted that the stickers were Allison votes. They did this because the law is clear – honor voter intent.
@Shawn, so any sticker placed anywhere on any race were counted as a vote for Sharma in the Ward 4 race???
I didn’t observe every circumstance of this, but I think that in general, the answer to your question is ‘yes’. The Newton Election Commission voted 3 to 1 in favor of counting votes for Allison regardless of where they were on the ballot … unless the ballot also had the bubble for Chris filled in … in which case the Commission voted 3-1 in favor of counting it for Chris.
Again, the Newton Election Commission did a very good job with this recount. The overriding principle they followed was; “what was the voter trying to do”. They, and the City staff, should be commended for and proud of their professionalism.
@Shawn Fitzgibbon – sounds like they did a good job.
It’s pretty remarkable that she came within 7 votes. I wonder how long (ever?) since there’s been any race that close in newton – nevermind the writein part.
@Jerry – I won on a recount by 12 votes but that was a city-wide race back in 1997.
From the Secretary of State’s Office website on write-in candidates: “It is important for you to give clear instructions to voters about the office which you are seeking and where to write in your name or place the sticker. Please note that write-in and sticker votes are counted for the office where the name is written or sticker placed. For example, if you are running as a sticker candidate for selectmen, but the voter places your sticker under school committee, you will receive a vote for school committee.”
Amy, thank you for clarifying by posting the Secretary of State’s example.
Thank you, Amy. The Sec of State’s instructions make sense to me. Someone placing a candidate for councilor’s name under school committee, state rep, or mayor, etc., shows less awareness of the responsibilities of local government than someone writing in Mr. Topham Hatt.
I would like to add a comment or two from the counting side. The city asked for several election Wardens and Clerks to do the recount. From my side of the process I wanted to echo the praise that David Olsen and his staff received. I believe that we had excellent instructions and the process was setup to eliminate mistakes. For the most part the observers, from both campaigns, were respectful of the recount workers which was nice since we had a lot of time to wait for a ruling when an objection was raised on a particular ballot.
As far as I’m aware, if a voter places a sticker under a different office than the one in dispute or similarly writes in a candidate, the vote should not count. Under such circumstances, it has been held by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that the voters intent cannot be reasonably inferred. In allowing Ms. Sharma to earn votes for Ward Councilor when her name was placed within the Ward School Committee box, what authority did the Election Commission cite?
Reviewing the Sec’y of State’s information on write-in campaigns, it does appear that the commissioners were correct to count votes for Ms. Sharma where the bubble was not filled in. However, where voters placed the sticker or wrote in a name under a different electoral office, the vote would be counted as a write in vote for that office:
“It is important for you to give clear instructions to voters about the office which you are seeking and where to write in your name or place the sticker. Please note that write-in and sticker votes are counted for the office where the name is written or sticker placed. For example, if you are running as a sticker candidate for selectmen, but the voter places your sticker under school committee, you will receive a vote for school committee.”
Thus, if a voter put Ms. Sharma’s sticker under the Ward 4 School Committee race, that should be counted as a vote for Ms. Sharma for the school committee, not city council.
Link here: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elestkr/stkridx.htm
For those who don’t take the PLACEMENT of the write-in candidate’s name as relevant, or who ignore the written instructions on every ballot to carefully fill in the BUBBLE, or think that a checkmark or other scratching qualifies as a vote, I’d like to remind you that this is not just about this particular Chris V. Allison situation. If such protocol is what has become common in Newton, then I believe there should be a recount of every race in the city. This sloppiness is NOT consistent with respect for the voting process, nor does it guarantee that we the voters should be confident in ANY vote outcome. It is clear that all those who support loose interpretation of the rules in this thread are anti-Chris M. people. You comment that when CM challenged the bubble concept used in the recount, it was referred to as cynical and worse. When his opponent asked for dubious votes placed in the wrong place to be hers, this was as it should be. Short story, I am disappointed in all that I have read here that assumes Newton citizens can’t follow directions. If you are going to have voting become a guessing game, forget the clear directions now on ballots and say something at the top of each ballot like “to the best of your ability, indicate below who you want to run the city; if possible, try to make clear what office you would like them to assume”. That is the essence of what the recount people did, so might as well formalize it. Before the next election cycle it is imperative that all citizens understand the rules, or lack there of. Election commission, it’s on you to ensure that those of us who do follow the rules are not disenfranchised by those who don’t.
So now I’m completely perplexed. Does the Newton Election Commission have the authority to override the protocol of the proper way to count votes as delineated by the Massachusetts Secretary of State? Shouldn’t we be more than just a little concerned about the latitude taken by appointed members of the Newton Election Commission to defy the law as set forth by the state, and make such far flung inferences around voters’ intent? From my perspective, the real story here isn’t the excellent write-in campaign run by Allison Sharma to garner so many votes, but the dubious actions taken by the members of the Newton Election Commission during the recount. Or, maybe I’m missing something? I would love to see this story covered by the Boston Globe reporter (John Hilliard?) to help me get a complete picture!
My understanding, is the Newton Election Commission will interpret the law in cases where the ballot does not show an obvious selection. There was another law referenced to count the votes as the voter intented to vote. In the case of no circle filled or checked but with the name or sticker placed in the Ward 4 Ward race, the NEC interpreted the intention of the voter to cast a vote for the write-in candidate for that particular race. The Markiewicz campaign challenged each ballot that had no mark, we counted those as Blanks, and the NEC ruled them as a vote for neither candidate. The voter intent was to skip that race. One can understand that if a sticker is placed on the ballot but no mark made, it could be considered a grey area, the voter knew that two candidates were vying for the same position but the voter’s intention was to vote for neither candidate. It is more likely that placing the sticker would show intent to cast a vote. I would guess that if Sharma wants to pursue this in court the issue of counting votes from other races will be a key issue to argue.
@Lauren Berman – I don’t have a dog in this fight (the election itself) but I do take issue with you charging the Election Commission of taking the law in their own hands. I’m no lawyer but the quote Tricia posted above sure sounds like the Election Commission was following the law.
“In O’Brien v. Board of Election Commissioners, 257 Mass. 332, 338-339, 153 N.E. 553, 556 (1926) the court said “that if the intent of the voter can be determined with reasonable certainty from an inspection of the ballot, in the light of the generally known conditions attendant upon the election, effect must be given to that intent… The omission of the residence … on some ballots on which the name had been written by the voters rightly was found not to invalidate such votes.” Maiewski v. Board of Registrars of Voters, 347 Mass. 681, 199 N.E. 2d 680 (1964). This includes where a voter fails to complete the vote indicator next to the write-in space—the write-in or sticker vote will still be counted.“
The quote Amy posted above was general instructions to candidates from a state web site. The quotes Tricia posted were excerpts from legal decisions – i.e. the law
@Jerry how do you square that with this from Amy’s post
“Please note that write-in and sticker votes are counted for the office where the name is written or sticker placed. For example, if you are running as a sticker candidate for selectmen, but the voter places your sticker under school committee, you will receive a vote for school committee.”
My takeaway is that as long as the vote is placed in the correct spot via write in or sticker (regardless of whether the oval is filled in) it counts. But it only counts on the race upon which it was placed. So IF the Election Commission gave Sharma credit for a Ward 4 vote on sticker of right-in vote on other races those can’t be applied to the Ward 4 race. I don’t know that they did but I thought I read that yesterday and it should be easy enough for someone in the know to answer.
@Lauren Berman I whole-heartedly agree! Allison was an excellent candidate as was Chris for sure. I think the larger implications of re-counting by inference should concern us all. I also believe that voters NEED to use the ballots as described on the form. It is really not a rocket science. I am left wondering how many candidates have won/lost elections because of not adhering to the latter. It seems soo0 simple. Put the name in the correct race; fill in the bubble within the lines. Don’t do these things….. no vote. Forget about “intent” if these 2 critical items are done improperly.
Why doesn’t someone who was in the room give a summary if they can as to what votes counted and what didn’t?
For those on either side getting worried, there is settled law on these types of points, the Election Commission I’m sure followed the law. It would be best if folks on the sidelines who weren’t in the room or aren’t experts on election law take a step back, allow the facts to come out and the reasoning, and THEN comment or post. That includes me. Reading the above posts, lots of folks seem to be giving reactions to things that didn’t happen, or if they did, can be explained based on a legal interpretation. The SoS website for the record, is not a legal source, and is designed to give general information.
I agree with Jon that this isn’t about one election, although I disagree that most of us are posting are against Chris, this is a recount and would be news either way, although Chris being involved and the controversy regarding the ballot timing make it more interesting than usual.
It would be good to get clear guidance as to what occured/what the standards are. I also think that neither campaign seems to be complaining about the process or the election commission being unfair, which leads me to think this is all just a tempest in a blog-pot.
@fignewtonville, The answer would need to come from a member of the NEC, one of the candidates or one of the attorneys. There were many of us in the room and I was one of the closest to the group deliberating but being only in earshot I would not be able to provide a summary. Many of the more contentious ballots were reviewed after the ballot counters had left.
Jon:
It seems so simple, but a write-in campaign makes it complicated.
I think what really needs to occur is that the date for withdrawing your name from the ballet needs to be before the date you can pull papers. That way, this type of write-in campaign never occurs again. You want to withdraw? Great. Tell us with enough time that the votes get to have the most possible choices.
Even if we disagree on what Chris did or knew, surely we can agree that this write-in campaign makes it obvious that the process can be improved. And remember, as you point out Jon, this isn’t about just one race.
And for those who are pointed out the importance of ward representation, I’d think you’d be on board as giving the ward the most fair election possible.
How does this fix get made?
@ Jerry Reilly In O’Brien v. Board of Election Commissioners, 257 Mass. 332, 338-339, 153 N.E. 553, 556 (1926) are the last 4 numbers (1926) indicating the year of the decision? If not, in what year was this decision handed down, and what were the circumstances? Had the voters used paper and pencil; machines as we have? other?
@fignewtonville I agree we need a fix. I’m hoping the election commission looks at this event, eyes wide open, and comes up with some public suggestions. On the timing of drawing papers and deciding not to run, it sounds like you’ve got some good suggestions. Re Chris M: I think its time for people to stop conjecturing on this, since most people in the Ward are fully aware of Jay’s issues which were encountered rather abruptly. Its unseemly.
@Jerry: The issue in Maiewski was simply whether write in votes should count if voters omitted the candidates address. In Maiewski, unlike in the case of Ms. Sharma, all of the write in ballots at issue were cast in the correct space.
Fig is right re: not jumping to conclusions as the integrity of our election system could very well be the bigger issue here. As such, where can we find official minutes that clearly articulate the Election Commission’s reasoning in regard to why it allowed School Committee votes to count as Ward Councilor votes for Ms. Sharma?
Here’s some required reading for anyone wishing to comment on the recount, so we can all stop talking out our you-know-whats. “ELECTION RECOUNTS” from the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/Election-Recounts.pdf
The bottom line is that the registrars essentially act as judges of the protested ballots. Here’s the most important part, for those of you who won’t read the whole thing:
In certain cases, case law is clear regarding “the will of the voters” and what may or may not count as a vote for a write in/sticker candidate. In my opinion, the most important question right now is: did the Election Commission count any votes for Ms. Sharma that were 1) cast within the Ward School Committee box and 2) did not have any other markings which reasonably indicated that said voter intended to place that specific vote within the Ward Councilor box? In other words, did the Election Commission change any Ward School Committee votes into Ward Councilor votes for Ms. Sharma that only had her name written or marked with a sticker within the Ward School Committee box? Someone must know the answer to this.
@Jerry Reilly, I have no idea if they took the law into their own hands–I’m trying to square the rule of not counting votes of stickers placed in other races on a ballot (per the MA Secretary of State site which @Amy Sangiolo referenced) with the members of the Election Commission deciding to count these stickers during Saturday’s recount. I’m curious as to how this determination was made, and about the legal precedent. Is it simply the case Tricia cited on inferences of intent about unfilled ovals on stickers and incomplete addresses that the Election Commission extended to include stickers placed anywhere on the ballot? Or is there something else? I feel like there’s a piece that I’ve got to be missing, but have no idea what it is.
Jon, regarding Jay, my issue is not that he decided not to run again, just whether Chris got a heads up while the general public did not. I completely agree it is in the past. But I’d like to fix it so that it doesn’t happen again, since even if unintentional, it gave the appearance of Jay picking his successor. I wasn’t trying to be unseemly, but it is difficult to talk about the fix if I don’t refer to why we need the fix.
For those of you who think I’m wrong, ask yourself if your typical city councilor who you oppose did this, how would you feel? For instance, say if Ted had exited in this fashion for those who opposed Ted?
Let’s make the process cleaner and learn from our mistakes, even if they were unintentional. Is that just a board vote?
@Tom Davis, we had a few ballots at our table where stickers for Allison Sharma were placed in the box for School Committee, with no markings made in the Ward 4 Councilor race, and the Election Commission made the decision to count these as Ward 4 Councilor votes for Allison Sharma.
@Tricia–thanks for posting that about the “Will of the Voters.” Now I understand why the decision was made to count stickers placed anywhere on the ballot–even in races where Allison Sharma was not a candidate. It does, however, raise a question for me about how a “minor irregularity” is defined. Not filling in a bubble on a sticker, missing an address, a misspelled name, are, in my mind, minor irregularities. But votes cast in a different race, not so much…
…So the “decision” being quoted to support what occurred in the recount, was in fact from the year 1926!! There was a second/different decision from 1964. Let’s get real here folks. The circumstances, voting methods of that era are unknown to us. I can’t take it seriously. And since when does Newton do things the way everyone else does, especially when it predates most living Newtonites today. Yes it’s case law, but it’s very local, very narrow and very OLD case law.
Jon – the decision that was quoted above was also quoted in the 2017 revision of the “Election Recounts” document issued by the Elections Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth. You may not be able to take it seriously, but apparently Secretary Galvin and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does.
@Lauren Berman – Those are reasonable questions. As fignewtonville suggested though we’d do well to find out the facts and details, especially before making statements like “Shouldn’t we be more than just a little concerned about the latitude taken by appointed members of the Newton Election Commission to defy the law as set forth by the state.
More details at:
https://village14.com/2017/12/04/sharma-concedes-ward-4-city-council-contest-following-recount/
@Jerry, agreed. I am guilty of pontificating. It happens. I remain perplexed and await to hear insights as to why the determination was made to count ballots from races outside of the Ward 4 Councilor race when the Secretary of State explicitly states that sticker votes are only to be counted in the races to which they were applied. I’m all ears.
@fignewtonville, I really wish you hadn’t dragged my name into it. 😉
But since you did, I will say that one of the key changes in the Charter approved by voters in 1971 was to require special elections to fill vacancies on the Board of Aldermen, rather than by a vote of the Board of Aldermen. Previously, incumbents could effectively choose their successors by running for re-election, thereby keeping potential candidates from throwing their hats in the ring, and then resigning after the election and throwing their support behind their hand-picked successors. Moreover, before municipal elections became nonpartisan in 1916, candidates were chosen in private party caucuses. This usually resulted in uncontested elections, due to the utter dominance of the Republican party in Newton at the time.
So, uncontested races and picking one’s successor are apparently nothing new in Newton politics.
@Lauren: You’re absolutely correct. I’m not an elections attorney, but based on my understand of the law, under the circumstances laid out throughout this thread, the votes at issue should not have counted in her favor. (At least not in terms of non-Ward Councilor votes being converted into Ward Councilor votes without some indication that the voter intended their vote to be cast for Ward Councilor.) I’m looking forward to learning more about the official reasoning used to come to this decision as this is really important stuff.
@Jerry – The O’Brien case you mentioned earlier also has a finding that seems to contradict the decision to count stickers placed in the School Committee race as votes for Allison in the Ward race:
Taken from http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/257/257mass332.html
“(3) While the use of pasters in voting for candidates whose names do not appear upon the official ballot is permissible under the statute, the statutory provisions in G. L. c. 54, s.s. 42, 65, 77, show that the Legislature intended pasters, where used, to be inserted under the designation of the office for which the voter seeks to nominate the candidate;
…
(5) Findings that a failure of a voter to place the paster in the space designated for candidates for district attorney, whether containing a cross or not, made impossible the drawing of an inference of affirmative intent on the part of the voter to vote for the person named on the paster, and that such a ballot did not manifest the intent of the voter and should not be counted for the name on the paster, were warranted; it could not be said as a matter of law that the placing of such a paster on some other part of the ballot than under the designation, “district attorney,” was a manifestation of purpose to vote for district attorney;”
@Tom Davis, et al – From Allison Sharma’s concession announcement:
In addition, there were 71 ballots on which Allison Sharma’s name was written in on the front of the ballot under the Ward 4 Councilor-at-large race, but for which she was NOT given credit.
As fignewtonville so aptly put it “tempest in a blog-pot”
@Jerry: Correct, by law, she should not have gotten credit for those votes. The Election Commission made the right call in so ruling. However, what we’re hearing here is that as a separate issue, Ward School Committee votes were converted into Ward Councilor votes when there was no indication that the voter who cast the ballot at issue intended to vote for Ward Councilor. The Election Commission could have also made the right call here, but they have a duty to clearly articulate their reasoning, which I’m yet to see or hear. I’m not sure why you have a problem with that.
Speaking to one of the (very few, from what I understand) ballots where Allison Sharma had a vote counted from the Ward 4 School Committee box, here was how the ballot looked: the voter did not vote in ANY race except for Ward 4 School Committee. They did not vote for mayor, or the charter, etc. In the Ward 4 School Committee spot, they clearly wrote in Allison Sharma and filled in the bubble. When this ballot came to the four voting commissioners (not sure if this is their proper name, but the four people that settled each objection), each of them examined the ballot, then the lawyers were able to speak to the ballot and how they would rule it, and then the four voting commissioners each voted. 3 voted for Allison Sharma, explaining that they felt the voter went into the poll with the intent of voting for her. 1 of the 4 voted for “blank”. She received the vote.
While I only watched the ballot objections for Precincts 1 and 2 (and did not stay to see the “special” stack – those where something was written on the front of the ballot in the Ward 4 at-large space), I do know that in any case where Chris’ bubble was filled in, he certainly got the vote.
Yep. So basically several blog folks should be posting some mea culpas right now. Anyone who claimed that the school committee votes with an allison sticker were counted…that appears to be incorrect. Unless you have better information than you heard it from someone else, perhaps a quick apology is in order.
I will say this, there is a case to be made that Allison won the election. I think it is a damn strong case in intent. But I’m also very glad she conceded based on these facts.
7 vote difference. 71 ballots where the sticker was under the at-large race. No credit for those.
That’s the correct call. But damn…that’s a tough way to lose. And a tough way to win.
Giving my own mea culpa:
So maybe they were counted. Read J. Schneider’s post above. Still sounds like things were done the right way.
@Jerry, that statement is misleading. Allison Sharma was not given credit for those 71 votes because, while her name was written/stickered into the Ward 4 at large race on the front of the ballot, on the back of the ballot, the oval for Chris Markiewicz was filled in for the Ward 4 Councilor race. Believe it or not, one of the members of the Election Commission did not want to count these votes for Chris (!), but she was over-ruled by the other members. My understanding is that Allison was, however, given all of the votes that she received on the front of the ballot in the Ward 4 at large race when the oval next to Chris’ name was not darkened in on the back of the ballot, for Ward 4 Councilor.
Lauren:
I think that speaks to the confusion of write in campaigns. Which is why we should change the law so Allison could have actually gotten on the ballet. Wouldn’t it have been better for your ward to have a choice?
Make the withdrawal date a week before the filing date. Solves the problem, no?
Even if this was unintended, it certainly hurt Jay’s reputation, caused Chris to be under a cloud going forward, gave the ward less choice. It caused confusion and delay.
We should do better. Do you agree?
@Jerry “Even if this was unintended, it certainly hurt Jay’s reputation, caused Chris to be under a cloud going forward”
Seems to me the constant innuendo against Jay and Chris is the source of any “cloud” Give it a rest!!
SORRY JERRY! Meant FIG!!
@Claire – yeah, I get enough grief over my own comments 😉
🙂
@fig, I agree with some of what you said but not all of it. Yes, absolutely, change the withdrawal date to a week before the filing date–I agree. And yes, I agree that choice is always a good thing. I do believe that because of the Herculean efforts of Allison Sharma, her network of supporters, including the influence of the Newton Democratic Committee and the self-proclaimed “Progressive Newton” group, Ward 4 voters were given a choice. Unfortunately, at least in my eyes, because of the focus on Jay’s late withdrawal from the race, Chris Markiewicz was wrongly vilified and his virtues and strengths were sadly overlooked. I believe that if Chris has a cloud over his head it’s because those who dispute Jay’s reasons for withdrawing from the race, put it there. Going forward, I suspect magnanimous individuals will push that aside, move on, support Chris Markiewicz, and help him succeed in his role as Ward 4 Councilor. I’m looking forward to seeing whom those people are–I bet I’d like them. Are you one? Also, fig, what’s your real name? I hate talking to a cookie.
@Lauren: Great comment, except I’d argue that Chris also needs to reach out. He’s been pretty illusive (never commenting here for one example. If Chris has virtues and strengths — and I presume he does— he needs to articulate them.)
Perhaps he was caught up by the coincidence of Harney’s withdrawal. Perhaps not. But it’s never been explained and it’s hard to move beyond it when there is no clarity.
@Fig: how can you have a deadline to withdraw before a deadline to file?
I was an official observer at the recount and confirm Lauren Berman’s comment that the 71 ballots where Sharma was written or stickered for Ward 4 at large were not given to her because the Chris bubble was clearly filled in for Ward 4 Councilor. She got votes from Ward 4 at large placements (and anywhere else on the ballot, including Ward 2 School Committee) when Chris was not marked on Ward 4 Councilor race.
The recount results are official and Chris received more votes than Sharma. Period. Please give Chris the congratulations he deserves for winning the Ward 4 councilor seat.
Greg:
The deadline to withdraw just means your name stays on the ballet. Do incumbents need to submit signatures? Or make them co-terminus. Doesn’t matter to me.
For all of those defending Chris, I’ve said many times now I wish him well as ward 4 councilor. Once the election is over, I see no point in doing otherwise.
But I’m pretty sure it is Chris’s job to reach out to the community. And he hasn’t exactly done that to date. Some folks on this blog think he’s terrific. I’ll just have to judge him on the job, since he isn’t my ward councilor. But he could have cleared up some facts early on. One of the reasons I think he deserves the cloud that rested over him is that from my recollection is he never answered if he had prior knowledge of Jay’s withdrawal. He could have certainly made himself very available, laid out his positions, and said very clearly “hey, I’m in this election not to replace Jay but as my own person, I had no prior knowledge and support me because of THESE 10 issues”. But I didn’t see that from him. At all.
Happily it isn’t too late. I don’t care too much now about the prior knowledge question, but he can certainly be more open as a city councilor than he was as a candidate. It isn’t my job to vilify him or support him though. It isn’t about being magnanimous. It’s his job to be a great city councilor, and at this point that is what he’ll be judged on, at least until the next election. And then I suspect this election might just stick in folks mind next time around…unless he does that great job. The power of incumbency only helps so much…
As for you talking to a cookie, best get used to it. For family reasons mostly I intend to stay a anonymous cookie. Also, there are a host of cookie jokes I enjoy making, and I’d miss those. I’ve posted here since the first day, so folks can attest that I’m not a sock puppet or a troll. Judging by the down votes, I’ve got a loyal following of about 8 regular readers who hate everything I write. Or just hate cookies. Or Newtonville. Or Figs. (who could say?)
@Fig: Years ago (I can’t recall the year) Ward 6 Alderman Susan Basham waited until after election day to announce plans to move to California, even though it became clear from subsequent news reports that she knew she was moving well before election day. That triggered a taxpayer-funded special election, even though Basham had an opponent (someone remind me who that was).
That was widely seen as a sneaky move by Basham to influence who would inherit her seat and that’s all I remember about Alderman Basham today. Unfortunately, this may be Councilor Harney’s legacy as well.
All that said, I look forward to working with Councilor-elect Markiewicz
Elaine, I don’t disagree it is over, but why would someone put a sticker for Allison on Ward 4 at large if they didn’t want to vote for her? I’m not saying those votes should have counted for her, but do you agree there was some uncertainty there, just from a logic standpoint?
What a mess. Write-in campaigns are just messy. 7 vote difference is insanely close. And can you imagine the mess if Allison had been 7 votes ahead with the already mentioned school committee votes, etc? Wouldn’t you have been upset with that result?
We really should fix this for the next election.
Congratulations Chris Markiewicz. I wish you all the best on the Council.
As the Auburndale ward councilor I’m hoping you’ll be joining the effort to get the first annual A’dale Porchfest off to a great start …. oh yeah, and all the rest of City business too.
Greg:
I’d rather have a taxpayer funded special election than the mess we had in ward 4. It would be a shame if that was Jay Harney’s legacy.
And congrats to Councilor-elect Markiewicz from me as well.
Susan Basham was last on the ballot for Ward 6 alderman at large in November 2003, along with Ken Parker and Neal Fleisher. The special election to replace her was held six months later. Vicki Danberg won. Different circumstances then; same hard feelings.