The TAB recently reported an issue about some missing/incorrect election results for the recent Municipal Election held on November 2nd, which I also reported in my fabulous newsletter and on my website this morning. Apparently,all precincts in Ward 1 and Ward 2 Precincts 1 and 2 were missing from the “official results” that were certified by three of the Election Commissioners last Friday evening and were taken down from the City’s website over the weekend. For folks who want to see the initial “official results” you can go here. The “unofficial results” are still posted online but can be found here. The TAB article can be found here.
I assumed the election would be certified in a few days. Has this ever happened before in Newton? Is it possible that this could affect the outcome of any of the races?
I just don’t get how blatantly incorrect results can be certified. So did they certify the results showing that Andrea Kelley got only 1 vote in 2-3, and that an entire Ward was missing? How could THAT not raise an eyebrow by someone with the authority to certify Newton’s election results? I called the clerk’s office to get the certified results and I was assured they would be posted by 5 pm today. That didn’t happen. Why not? I hate to say it, but between the various known debacles on election day and the city’s failure to report the correct election results, it raises questions about the integrity of Newton’s election process.
A few quick things:
1) Please lets differentiate between a certification form cutting off Ward 1 and Ward 2 from the official results (minor human error, easily correctable) from “questions about the integrity of Newton’s election process.” I get that after an election there are some negative feelings on various sides, and if there is an actual error that affects any race I’d be sure to take that seriously. But so far, not seeing it. And making it bigger than it is casts doubt on the Newton election process which is very undeserved.
2) if we are going to have posts about “various known debacles on election day”, I think it is important to name them. Let’s be transparent. If those “debacles” could have turned the election, that’s a big deal. My guess? Every election has errors. Reporting errors. Incorrect places to vote sent out. That’s not a scandal, that’s humanity at work. But letting us know about the “debacles” helps actually prevent similar events from happening again, as well as helps the rest of us judge if these “debacles” were just minor issues on election day that didn’t do anything to chance the results, or some major unfairness to a candidate.
3) Generally running elections is a thankless job, and lately the folks on the ground have been crapped on a fair amount. Most of the folks working elections are our neighbors. And in my experience the city has tried, through multiple decades, to do things in a fair and transparent manner. So with that, I personally both thank them, and give them the benefit of the doubt if things take a bit longer to be certified.
This is a big story, but don’t look for the Globe to cover it or for the V41 echo chamber to care.
The first six precincts are missing from the certified results and the Newton election commission signed the results, anyway.
More importantly, there should be no reason for candidate to lose votes between the unofficial count and the official count , but Brenda Noel lost 31 votes, Julia Malakie lost 78 votes, John Oliver lost 174 votes, and Andrea Kelley lost 312 votes.
These discrepancies call into question the integrity of the election and the election commission, but since it reflects poorly on the Mayor, the Globe will be silent.
@Debra Waller
You do realize you posted your comment on a Village14 post about a problem with the Official Election Results. Yes?
I’d like to echo Jerry’s comment,
I’d like to echo Jerry’s comment.
The city elections website has a notice that an amended certification will be posted after it is certified on Wednesday, November 17, 2021.
This is the same election commission that voted to accept a candidate’s spouse’s notarized signature on nomination papers.
One reasonable assumption is that the unofficial counts would be higher than the “official” counts by about the same number of votes that were in the missing precincts but that is not at all the case. The numbers are not at all consistent.
Here are the vote tallies for the Mayor’s and the Ward 5 Councilor at Large races as examples:
Unofficial Missing “Official”
Mayor
Fuller 10,796 1,594 10,916
Sangiolo 9,288 1,765 9,371
Total 20,084 3,359 20,287
Ward 5 Councilor at Large
Crossley 9,327 1,506 9,431
Getz 8,168 1,381 8,259
Downs 8,340 1,345 8,336
Total 25,835 4,232 26,026
Will see how these numbers will change once the actual official votes are posted. Perhaps there needs to be a manual recount?
It’s unfortunate that someone messed up in reporting the official results. I’m glad they are being corrected promptly. I’m not sure what to think about the reduced tallies for Ward Councilors Malakie and Noel, whose totals would be unaffected by the missing precincts, but the reductions were pretty trivial. Perhaps there were some small reporting errors on election night that were later corrected.
It’s instructive to contrast the good-governance tone of Ms. Sangiolo with the conspiratorial post from Ms. Waller. The major lesson of January 2021 is that democracy is fragile and must be protected, especially by candidates for office. For a candidate who lost in a landslide to hop onto social media and question the integrity of the election, adding an obligatory dig on “lamestream media,” is downright Trumpian.
And how did the Ward 1 Ward Councilor race have a vote total without any of the ward/precinct detail? Someone really needs to explain how these “official” election results got certified?
Stop the steal!!!!!
John White – I guess no one can ever object to anything about an election without being accused of being Trump, even lifelong Democrats, like myself.
The Ward Councilor is a time consuming job that pays 15K a year. From 2003 through 2021 there were 81 Ward Councilor races (10 regular elections, 1 special election). Only three times has a Ward Councilor challenger ever won against an incumbent. Three. And almost all of the races have been races in which the challenger won less that 40% of the vote. In my Ward Councilor race I won only 37% of the vote, but there have been many races where the challenger got under 30% of the vote.
In the face of almost certain loss, I ran anyway for this 15K a year job. Why? Because I care about the democratic system. This means that I care about the broken Newton government without a functional Law Department, without a functional Public Record System, and, now, it appears, without a functional Election Commission. I also care that Boston doesn’t have real newspaper, as evidenced by their silence about this story.
So, no apologies from me about anything.
I am grateful to you and everyone who runs for office in Newton. I agree that it seems like a thankless, difficult task. However, when you literally call into question the integrity of the election and the election commission in a public forum, you are (again literally) implying that the election may have been rigged. Big-D Democrats can erode democratic norms as well.
Council got an explanation from our new City Clerk about the mistakes in the posting of the official results.
Long story short: clerical printing and transcription errors from the “unofficial” to the “official” results.
Knowing how short-staffed the elections department is, I have been impressed at how well the past two elections were run (preliminary and November). But it’s understandable that a stretched-thin staff may make mistakes.
These have been examined, and according to the Clerk, correct results will be posted Wednesday.
Thanks Andraea. That explanation doesn’t explain how or why these “official” results were certified by Newton’s Election Commission.
On top of her many accomplishments as an Alderman/City Councilor, Amy Sangiolo performed a true service for Newton by stepping up and challenging an incumbent mayor. Although she lost the election, I believe Amy’s efforts will result in Mayor Fuller being a better mayor for the next four years.
I am very disappointed to hear about the inconsistencies of the election results. While I’m fairly certain these issues did not change the winner, they are nevertheless unacceptable and inexcusable. As a voter, I have been wholly unimpressed by the Elections Commission the past two elections. It appears that it’s time for a change of personnel in that department.
These accusations about the integrity of the people who run elections in Newton are totally out of line.
These are the facts:
The new city clerk took on her role very recently and was handed her first election soon after.
The elections weren’t close.
The mistakes were corrected.
Democracy wasn’t undermined.
What’s wrong with people that every mistake must be turned into a conspiracy? IMO, the “story” here is the lack of humanity directed toward the people who run this city.
AMY SANGIOLO for GOVERNOR!
Just reminding folks that the updated recertified election results are now posted. Seems like this was a tempest in a teapot. A mountain made out a molehill. Or perhaps to some small extent, a bit of sour grapes.
.. or sour grapes in a molehill. Those moles sure do love their rotting fruit 😉
@fignewtonville – do you have a link to the updated election results? I’m having trouble finding them on the city website.
https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/77653
Thanks
The most material changes from the official certified election results on 11/12/21 to the official certified election results on 11/17/21 were as follows: Andrea Kelly +401 votes, John Oliver +300 votes, Julia Malakie +101 votes, Andreae Downs +88 votes, Brenda Noel +50 votes, total vote count +212 votes.
On 11/12/21, Newton’s Election Commission signed certified results that weren’t just wrong. They were OBVIOUSLY wrong for the following 4 reasons: A) 6 precincts were missing, B) the total vote count between official and unofficial was unchanged, C) Andrea Kelly had 1 vote in W2/P3, D) four candidates lost a substantial number of votes between the unofficial and official result, which seems impossible.
Neither the Election Commission, the Mayor, the City Council President, nor the City Clerk noticed these obvious 11/12/21 errors until others complained.
Based on this, I think the Election Commission should be dismissed. I would feel this way if I had run and won, or if I hadn’t run at all. I am not saying the election was rigged or that something was done intentionally. I am saying that the Election Commission did not do their job, for whatever reason, and should be dismissed.
I also think the Boston Globe should have reported this story and that, in the absence of this reporting, I should be able to post these discrepancies on V14 without being compared to Trump or a rodent. Certified vote count discrepancies of hundreds of votes happened. They are important because they cast doubt on the integrity of the Election Commission and the election process.
11/17/21 Certified Results:
https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/77647
Agree 100%. The incompetence is remarkable. The Commission has one singular job to post accurate election results in a timely fashion and they just didn’t get it right. And the excusing of this incompetence on V14 is even more remarkable.
The incredible shrinking Boston Globe has all it can do to cover news within the city limits of Boston. Newton may be all-important here on V14, but to the Globe editors it’s just a drop in the bucket of 350 cities and towns it has neither the personnel nor the page count to report on routinely. This has nothing to do with malfeasance and everything to do with the sad economics of newspaper publishing. If the vote discrepancy had been a case of subterfuge rather than a temporary error, or if it had affected the outcome of the election, you would certainly have read about it in the Globe. But it wasn’t, so you didn’t.
Hi Amanda Heller – The Boston Globe actually has a daily Newton news section. They also frequently publish front-page Opinion pieces about Newton which are always A) pro-developer, B) pro-Mayor, C) transformed in people’s minds from “Opinion” to “news story,” within hours. The Globe of a few years ago would have had a story about the vote count discrepancy if it occurred. Today’s Globe does not, because it would reflect poorly on the Mayor.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/new-england/massachusetts/newton/
Debra- Are you saying the editors at the Globe are in cahoots or beholden to the Mayor. Maybe there is no story because there is no story.
Ms. Waller,
I think it was immediately apparent to a lot of us that there was some sort of administrative snafu that was easily remedied.
And, lo and behold, it was an administrative snafu and easily remedied.
I think the Globe didn’t cover this because it isn’t really a story. Maybe a Patch or Tab story back in the day. A mistake happened, the election professionals correct the mistake, no election results were affected.
Maybe I’m just tired, but I can’t get worked up about every little mistake made by city government, especially when they make a good faith effort to correct.
Calling for the firing of the Election Commission isn’t going to make our elections better. Maybe just ask what they can do to make sure this type of mistake doesn’t happen again, even if it slows things down a bit? Seems a bit more reasonable.
Having worked as an election inspector for this past election, there are lots of safeguards in place to ensure the integrity of results. Representatives were on hand to see the unofficial results at the end of the night. The campaigns knew the results. It’s disappointing that there was such an obvious mistake when the results were converted to official. There was no fraud and no reason to call the results into question. Democracy worked in Newton and votes can be confirmed.
I would think that some kind of public explanation or apology should be coming but nowadays people calculate that an admission of error is worse than an explanation. I stopped wasting my time reading the globe about 5 years ago after subscribing for over 30 years. I don’t think it’s John Henry’s fault but he didn’t do anything to maintain the integrity of the paper.