From Allison Sharma campaign for the ward four city council seat
Underdog write-in candidate Allison Sharma has erased nearly all of the 160-vote lead once held by her opponent, Chris Markiewicz, after the December 2nd recount of the Ward 4 city council seat race in Newton. The revised tally sliced the margin between them to a razor-thin seven votes, 1118 for Sharma and 1125 for Markiewicz.
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. If she had been given credit for these votes she would have received 1189 votes, 64 more than Markiewicz.
“I am incredibly pleased and proud that in just a few short months, we were able to almost pull off the impossible by nearly winning a write-in campaign,” Sharma said. “I am especially heartened to know that 1189 ward 4 voters wrote my name in on their ballot – albeit not all in the proper place. The fact that that so many voters took the extra step to either write my name in or apply one of my stickers to their ballot confirms that my message on the campaign trail, to improve the diversity of housing options in the city and to work to ensure that Newton’s village centers are vibrant, walkable, and accessible, really resonated with voters.”
Despite the slim margin and the fact that there were over 900 disputed ballots that were challenged at the recount, Sharma announced today that she will not challenge the revised results in court. “Though it was very close and I believe that I would have a reasonable chance of prevailing in a court challenge, I believe it’s important to have closure so that on January 1, 2018, the city council has its full complement of 24 councilors, whose election is not being challenged, ready to conduct the people’s business.”
Sharma mounted the write-in campaign after the 14-year incumbent Ward 4 Councilor, Jay Harney, announced that he would not seek re-election. Harney withdrew his nomination papers after the filing deadline, leaving Chris Markiewicz as the only candidate to appear on the ballot. “I thought after 14 years it was important to give voters a choice in who their next representative would be”, Sharma said.
Sharma had glowing praise for the close to 100 people who participated in the recount proceedings on Saturday, some of whom worked upwards of 15 hours from beginning to end. “Everyone involved – the City Clerk and Assistant Clerk, the City Solicitors, the Election Commission, the election workers, the public safety officials and the volunteers and attorneys representing both me and my opponent – demonstrated tremendous patience and thoughtfulness throughout a very long day of proceedings. The city should be extraordinarily proud of how it carried itself. It was true Democracy in action”, Sharma said.
Sharma says it’s too soon to make any definitive plans for running again in 2019, though she promised: “If I do run again in two years, my name will be on the ballot. In the meantime, I will continue to engage in the local ward and city-wide issues that so many residents took the time to share with me on the campaign trail.”
Thanks for running and thanks for conceding.
Thanks to Allison Sharma and her volunteers for their spirited campaign and really remarkable results. And congratulations and to Chris Markiewicz.
@Chris: I believe you have some work to do to prove yourself worthy of obtaining this seat under still mysterious and questionable circumstances. I hope you will reach out to Sharma and her supporters as an important first step. But I certainly wish you the best and lots of success.
Meanwhile, this whole process will forever cast a negative shadow over Jay Harney’s otherwise commendable service to our city.
And that may be the biggest tragedy of all.
A classy concession from a classy candidate. Thanks for running, Allison.
I do recall some irregular elections in the past (Jonathan Yeo’s suspicious move after the candidacy deadline comes to mind) but in either case, I’m not sure such a qualified congratulations for Chris qualifies as a congratulations.
Allow me to be the first: congratulations Chris! We will look forward to having you on the Board of Councilors. Kudos!
Greg,
Can you tell us about any conversations you had with Jay Harney about his decision not to run, since you are so certain with your negative pronouncements? I think your readers would like to know.
Allison led her write in campaign with dignity and strength. To come so close as a write in candidate is very impressive (to me). I hope she runs in 2019, and I hope this teaches all of us that EVERY vote counts, and that having contested races is important to our city, state and country. WTG Allison.
Greg, I hope you will o answer my question above.
Thank you.
Please delete the “o” in my last post. Thank you.
No one is required to answer questions regarding a comment. Express your opinion, and that’s what you get.
I come to V14 less and less frequently. People here rarely honor the effort, commitment, and civic involvement of anyone outside of their circle of friends or acknowledge that others may simply have a different point of view or support another position on a particular issue. It’s all about winning and losing and attacking another’s integrity and in that, we all lose. I wonder when we began pointing fingers at one another about every little thing and how we can begin talking to each other again.
Give it some time Jane. Things will be better I think next year.
@Jane.
Please stick around. I don’t go around whacking people for what they do or what they say. I was a clear NO supporter for reasons I’ve made abundantly clear on this blog, but I’ve never made it personal.
Brian Yates and Tom Sheff have been on opposing ends of the charter reform issue for as long as I can remember. Tom was more than just a staunch advocate for downsizing the Board of Aldermen; he was a leader in getting this issue to the voters. Brian has been a staunch opponent of changing the current arrangement because he passionately believes that the 24 member system works just fine. Both of these guys exemplify the best qualities of honest civic leadership and I consider both of them good friends. Things this deep aren’t tempered by where they stood on this particular item. I feel the same about the Charter Commission members who proposed the 12 member at large City Council. I know they honestly felt this would make city government more efficient and responsive. Nobody is ever entirely right or wrong in most arguments over public policy. My feeling was that what ever efficiency and responsiveness occurred from a 12 member at-large council were not sufficient reasons to eliminate the 8 ward councilors. I only got hot under the collar when the YES side claimed that their proposal would save local representation when, in fact, it was the NO side that had that argument cornered.
@Bob Burke, very well said.
Didn’t Brian Yates vote for the 8+8 model this time around? As well as Jake?
Bob, my view of discourse on this blog is that most of us come at it in good faith. You would be in the category to be sure. I don’t always agree with you, but that’s good. If everyone agreed with me, why would I ever post anything?
As for getting hot under the collar, no worries there either.
Jane has been a great member of this blog for as long as I can remember. The Charter Commission was a huge time commitment, and there were definitely some verbal arrows directed her way. But I really believe next year will be better, and discourse will improve.
Fig. I couldn’t agree more with everything you said here. I talked with Brian at length about this. Brian can speak for himself, but I do know he thought the most important and pressing priority was to save the 8 ward councilors in any future configuration of the City Council and that advancing 8 and 8 as far as possible would improve the odds for that happening.
Thanks Bob.
I’m going to miss Brian. Didn’t always agree with him, but I don’t always agree with anyone I respect. 😉
Like I’ve said a bunch of times, if brought up again, I look forward to the discussion next session on 8 plus 8.
Its funny, but as much as we’ve argued this year on this blog, it hides how valuable Newton is as our home. After all, if we all didn’t give a crap, why would we argue so hard to make it better?
As for my part of Newton, I’m excited about the next few years. New Cabot, New Walnut Street, New Austin Street, New Outdoor dining, hopefully some new signs to bring out the New Art Center and Historic Newton properties.
Still don’t understand the German kitchen place, but some things are just a mystery. (seriously, does anyone understand the purpose of the My German Kitchen store? Did I miss a memo about German kitchens being awesome?)
@Fig: Yes.
Fir, Greg et.al. While we’ve been debating 8 and 8 and other such matters, the Congress has been teeing up a massive tax “reform” piece of legislation that I really feel could have drastically negative effects on Newton. I’ve already roughly added the effects on my own household, and it’s pretty apparent that this is a total bummer. But, I’ll concede there could be positive effects I’m just not seeing.
I would hope that someone with far deeper knowledge of taxes, properties, finance and budgets could post something more refined and thorough about the likely impacts so we could all comment. I’m certain we’ll find a lot of common ground that far transcends our local differences.
BTW. I’m quite upset that the progressive community and consumer groups didn’t do much if anything to get people onto the streets about this. This is happening without even a whimper and I’m too old to do anything about it.