| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Lori
Member
96 Posts |
 Posted - 11/16/2006 : 06:55:02 AM
|
EVERETT
Political adviser questions 150 votes
Nonresidents said to have cast ballots
By Katheleen Conti, Globe Staff | November 16, 2006
Everett election officials are looking into allegations that as many as 150 votes cast in last week's election came from people who no longer live in the city.
Political consultant Christopher Keohan, who managed the state representative campaign for Common Councilor Joseph Hickey, compiled a 53-page list of about 1,800 people who he said are registered to vote in Everett but no longer live there. There are 18,247 registered voters in Everett.
Keohan sent the list to Everett's registrar of voters, as well as the secretary of state's office, and asserted that about 150 people from the list attempted to vote last week in the city.
The effort is not to request a recount in Hickey's race against Alderman Stephen "Stat" Smith (he lost by 1,932 votes), Keohan said, but to try to purge the active and inactive voters lists to help streamline future elections. He said he started the list "based on the primary election, when there were a number of questionable voters.
"I hope that people that should not actually be registered in the district can be purged from the voters list," Keohan said.
City Clerk Michael Matarazzo, who is also the registrar of voters, said from what he has seen he suspects that the list Keohan used may be an excise tax list, with the names of Everett residents who may have registered their vehicles elsewhere to lower their insurance bills.
A spokesman for the secretary of state's office said the office had not received Keohan's list as of early this week.
Maria Pierotti, the administrative registrar of voters, said she went over the first page of the 53-page list provided by Keohan, and found that none of the people voted in the primary election, something that is not uncommon among voters. She added that she postponed further checking until the ballots cast last week are officially unlocked tomorrow. This way, she can check the names on Keohan's list based on both elections.
Removing names from the voters list is not an easy task, Pierotti said, adding that registrars are under strict rules from the state. If residents do not return their city census, they are automatically moved from the active voters list to the inactive list. However, Pierotti said, she cannot simply delete their names. Inactive voters can remain on the list for up to four years, or two state elections, if the local municipality where they were last registered does not hear from them, according to state guidelines.
Pierotti said inactive voters may become active if they turn in their city census, register to vote in a different community if they have moved away, sign a candidate's nomination form, or show up to vote with a photo identification card or current proof of address. They may also become active if they request an absentee ballot, which requires no form of identification or proof of address.
Absentee ballots are another point of contention for Keohan, who said he knows of people on his list who have lived outside the city for years yet were able to vote absentee.
"My Pop Warner football coach, who hasn't lived here for a decade, requested one and he lives in Byfield," Keohan said. He also said that Smith's father-in-law listed San Diego as his place of residence in a campaign contribution check, but requested an absentee ballot using Smith's home address.
Smith, however, said his father-in-law moved in with him two years ago, and that he requested an absentee ballot because he needed to go back to San Diego to sign papers on the sale of his home there.
"I don't know what he is talking about. Shame on him if he's talking about my father-in-law," Smith said of Keohan. "I've lost three or four elections and moved on.... It's sorry that they can't just fold their tent up and go home and be gracious."
Keohan also said that wardens in certain polling places "had no idea what to do" when a voter was challenged.
"The election wardens weren't familiar with the process of challenging a vote," he said.
Matarazzo said that out of 18 polling places, there was only one precinct that had trouble with the challenges.
"People took the challenges and took them properly," Matarazzo said, who described the claims as "unfounded."
" These people do the very best they can."
Pierotti said she expects to complete checking Keohan's list by the end of the month, and will use the out-of-town addresses to send postcards asking people to confirm their residency. Updating the voters list is a never-ending process, with people moving in and out of the city, and returning their census forms piecemeal throughout the year, instead of when they are due, Pierotti said.
She and Matarazzo will soon embark in a major promotional campaign targeted at all voters, but especially new immigrant residents, to fill out the city census, which will be mailed in January.
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 08:40:45 AM
|
| It probably is...and yet, a longtime business owner who lives outside of the city (open secret) also voted with no challenge from the Hickey crowd. I waited to see if they would challenge him and they didn't. It must have been one of "their" votes. |
 |
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 08:58:29 AM
|
Probably happens all over the country. People can own property in one or more place; as long as they're only registered to vote in one place, and vote in that one place, they have that right.
Does this list contain names of people who are registered to vote in other locations? If not, everyone has a right to vote.
No doubt there were people who voted here in last week's election that should have been voting somewhere else. Some of them probably voted for Hickey.
It may be time for the City to have an Election Commission, as they do in other cities and towns, and take the responsibility for managing the elections away from the City Clerk's office.
And by the way, since the Hickey campaign went to so much trouble to compile this list, they must also know that there is a "pre-review" process available in which names can be submitted to the Registrar of Voters' Office prior to an election is there is question as to their legitimate right to vote. Given that this list didn't suddenly appear over night -- clearly Mr. Keohan put a great deal of effort into compiling it -- the Hickey campaign might have considered submitting the list for review prior to the election rather than challenging people on the spot, publicly embarrassing and intimidating them, many of whom have been living and voting in this city for their entire lives. |
|
|
|
justhefacts
Member
51 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 9:22:10 PM
|
So let me get this straight Court4Fred. Last week on these blogs people were saying that Hickey's camp put together a haphazard list and was so disorganized that they were challenging some of their voters (similar to what Stat himself said when he verbally assaulted Chris Keohan at the Malden precinct). Now, after a decent article in the Globe, you say they were only challenging Smith people, and Citizen Kane says they took a lot of time putting it together?
Seems to me that Stat people can't have it both ways.
I worked at the polls for Joe, and I can attest that Mr. Keohan worked his tail off for that campaign. He basically put together a campaign in 6 weeks. Joe lost, I get that, but lets be honest. Hickey only Actively campaigned after the Primary, and still got a higher percentage than any other Independent in the state.
Finally, I was there when Chris described, in detail the list we used. We only challenged people that had an address outside of the district (that we found). Some could have been wrong, but many more were dead on. Chris warned our City Clerk, Mike Matarazzo about an extensive list of challenges (he put it together because of Nuzzo and others openly criticized voting irregularities in the primary), but was never informed of such a pre-election challenge process (he asked). He told us this, because we asked if there was such a process to avoid exactly what people are complaining about now.
So...now that the election is over, and the list is with the proper authorities to try and fix the problem of people no longer living here, voting here...can we move on and hope the city finds some true leadership so we can get out of the hole we are in? |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 9:34:22 PM
|
Of course we can . . . in fact, people had already moved on. It was Mr. Keohan who chose to bring this information to the newspaper and make it an issue once again.
He wasn't informed of the pre-election process? Did he call the Secretary of State's office to make sure that Everett had the process in place that was necessary.
And by the way, mentioning Smith's father-in-law was a cheap shot. The man has been living with Smith since his wife got sick; she has subsequently passed away.
And by the way, just because Hickey's campaign went to so much trouble to compile the list doesn't mean it wasn't haphazard and inaccurate. I have no doubt that Chris Keohan worked his tail off; he was just going about it the wrong way. Surely he could've spent as much time trying to identify Hickey's base and making sure those people got out to vote as he did putting an effort into trying to keep people from voting at all. |
|
|
|
justhefacts
Member
51 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 9:58:20 PM
|
Funny, Smith's father-in-law told Ron Keohan that he lived in California while standing outside the polls during the primary. It is the whole reason they challenged him. If he actually lived in Everett and was just going to close on his house on election day like Stat stated in the articel, why did he have his absentee ballot sent to California weeks before the election?
By the way, Keohan must be one hell of a multi-tasker, because he did have an operation getting out the vote, and a lot of ID's (unfortunately there just weren't enough people supporting Joe). Joe's lists of ID'd supporters had well over 2,000 people on them, because Keohan hired a major pollster to do an ID for them.
And...you are tyring to manipulate what we actually did on election day. Challenged voters still have the right to vote. They are only looked at afterwards if the election is very close. We didn't try to keep people from voting...we tried to keep people that don't live here anymore from voting. Big difference because one is voter intimidation and the other is trying to make sure the law is followed, as Frank Nuzzo insists it wasn't in the primary. |
|
|
|
Home
Member
97 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 10:02:32 PM
|
| This blog is posted in Sports? I think you made a error here. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 10:08:11 PM
|
Then perhaps Nuzzo should've had the gumption to do something about it. He certainly would've had a stronger case to make than Hickey did, given how close the primary was.
And do you honestly think that challenging whether a person has a right to vote, at the polling place, in front of people, isn't a form of intimidation?
And just because a person has an address outside of the district does not mean they don't have a legitimate right to vote in Everett, as long as they also have a legitimate address in Everett and are only registered from that address. As you said, everyone has a right to vote; they just don't have a right to do it in two places. Unless there is some sort of evidence that a person is registered to vote in two different places, it would be very difficult to have them removed from the voter's list and thereby denied the right to vote.
|
|
|
|
justhefacts
Member
51 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 10:16:17 PM
|
Actually, if you don't actually reside in Everett, you shouldn't be voting here. If you lived here, then moved, you have 6 months to re-register at your new residence. After that, you are ineligible to vote unless it is at your new location. If you vote at your old residence, you have broken a law (which many people did).
It amazes me that you say Nuzzo should have had the gumption to do something about it, yet chastize Hickey for doing the same. Once someone casts their vote it is final. If you don't challenge them right then and there, you can do nothing about it. This is somehting that Nuzzo found out the hard way. Joe Hickey was prepared for this and had the gumption to do something, yet you criticize him for it. Do you think he thought he would lose by 2000 votes, or do you think he was prepared for a close race?
Sounds to me like you want to have it both ways.
Finally, no it isnt intimidaiton. It is following the law, which is why there is a challenge process. Maybe if you think it is intimidation, you should do what Keohan has done and contact the authorities and the proper people that can bring things like this to light so you can get the process changed. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 10:25:20 PM
|
Oh, I'm all for getting the process changed. I actually think everyone should have to show identification in order to vote. I think Everett should have an Election Commission rather than having the elections run by the City Clerk's office. I'm not saying the process isn't flawed
And you're mixing up my point about property ownership. For instance, a challenge was issued against a man because he owned property in New Hampshire, although he has lived in Everett all of his life. An entire family of four was challenged; they actually reported it to the Secretary of State's office.
Yes, you're right, Hickey should've run a better campaign -- but he didn't. He didn't prepare, he didn't campaign, and he depended on this tactic instead. You may say it's not intimidation, but I'm guessing if you were the one being challenged, and you've lived here all of your life, then you'd either feel pretty intimidated or pretty pissed off. Hickey bought himself a lot of bad will taking this approach, and it may come back to bite him in the butt the next time he decides to run for something. |
|
|
|
bbpolitical
Forum Admin
265 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2006 : 11:31:15 AM
|
Moved from Rec Center announcements
I am an average resident of Everett who would like to see more communication about anything and everything to do with Everett |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
COULD THIS BE HAPPENING AROUND THE COMMONWEALTH
