Stay tuned.
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
Hughes: 39 Green: 38 Abstain: 3
It turned out that there was a challenge to a ballot marked "RG". Now, the Bylaws do state that only regular State Committee members may put names into nomination. As such, it appears that Counsel ruled that initials are not "names". However, Chairman Maginn had stressed, clearly so, that voter intent was to prevail. As such, the challenge to the ballot was withdrawn, the vote counted for Rick Green and that created a total of 39-39-2. As there was a tie, a second vote took place that ended up being 41-39 in favor of our new Chairman, Kirsten Hughes.
Now, while hanging afterwards I was in a discussion with RMG's own Paul Ferro when someone with knowledge about the vote count cleared up a few things with us when both Paul & I were wondering why the bloody Hell would 2 State Committee members vote to abstain. Well, apparently there were no abstentions. We were informed that after the second vote had begun that an informal perusal of the ballots showed that in addition to the "RG" originally counted as an abstention that the other to abstentions were anything but. I'll stand to be corrected as I didn't take notes during this conversation but it turns out that those to ballots were marked but not properly, at least not on the front of the paper. On the back of one paper a State Committee member wrote "Rick Green" upon the back of the ballot using a Sharpie magic marker pen. As such, it was noticed during this informal counting and that would hypothetically have brought Green up to 40 votes. However, the second alleged absentee ballot was similarly marked incorrectly on the back of the ballot but rather lightly using a ball point pen. As such the name of "Kirsten Hughes" wasn't even readily visible as the "abstention" vote for Rick Green. Therefore the "real" (but unofficial) vote total in the first round was actually a straight out 40-40 tie. Now, those two "abstentions" were not contested and as such the official record is & remains 39-39-2 for Round 1 of voting thus requiring Round 2 of voting that came out with the razor thin but definitive 41-39. Only the State Committee member in question & God knows who the switch from Green to Hughes ultimately was.
Again, Paul can probably verify the fine details but that's just some unofficial trivia for those who are really into the inner workings of the Chairman's vote. I couldn't believe that 2 SC members had abstained but in reality, there were no abstentions only two badly cast ballots that neither side challenged to count & if they had it still would've ended in a tie requiring a second round of voting.
Three of our colleagues, it seems, are incapable of performing so simple a task as writing a name on a line. This was not a butterfly ballot. This was not high-level technology. This was a simple piece of paper. It had a line.
If you can't spell either part of Rick Green's name, there's a problem. I'll grant that Kirsten Hughes is marginally tougher on both counts, but not by much.
Assuming the truth has been conveyed to you -- I certainly don't doubt you're reporting it accurately, just want to give due acknowledgment that this is still somewhat speculative -- this amounts to utterly mind-boggling stupidity on the part of three of our colleagues. One wonders why some consider us the stupid party. (I don't -- on the whole -- but things like this make me understand why others do.)
I'll say, in the end, that I'm glad...I think...to learn that no one "actually" abstained, but rather cast spoiled ballots. Marginally so, but still.
To use an analogy, I understand the need to occasionally punt the football but this is a couple seconds left in the game, down but a touchdown, with the Superbowl on the line and in that instance you don't punt the ball but you toss it into the end zone!
Therefore, knowing that the ballots were spoiled rather than being abstentions is at least something I can more easily get my brain around.
While I suppose technically the vote was announced as 3 abstentions (including the initial consideration of the "RG" ballot) I would have much prefer had it been announced as "39 votes for Hughes, 38 votes for Green, and 3 votes that were disqualified". It would've even been better had it been announced as "39-38 with 2 disqualified ballots & 1 contested ballot". That would've caused a lot less confusion for a couple of minutes last night.
Now, the "RG" ballot was easily accounted for with voter's intent. Now, for the sake of discussion, let's contemplate how things could, but didn't, turn out last night. The magic marker vote for Rick Green was apparently noticed during the informal, curiosity driven, examination while the second round of balloting took place. Since it was written with a Sharpie, the ink seems to have bled through the backside and onto the front. It's practical to assume that this would've been notice of well, a vote on the back of the paper. As such, Rick Green being written in, the argument could be made that the voter's intent was clear to vote for Rick but disqualified because it was written on the back of the ballot. Using the logic employed to dispense with the "RG" ballot - that there are only 2 candidates and thus is clear that "RG" meant Rick Green - then I suppose the argument could be made that the backside ballot for Rick Green should have been counted for Rick Green, thus there's Rick's 40 vote as noted earlier. However, the ballot for Kirsten Hughes that was disqualified for having been written on the back was said to have been written very lightly in ball point pen. As such, there was no immediate recognition that the ballot had been written upon the back. As such, going through this mental exercise, it wouldn't have been beyond the pale to believe that this vote was not so much disqualified but rather believed to have been left intentionally blank. After all, without the Sharpie bleeding through to the front there would've been no reason to flip the paper over and discover the faint writing. The conclusion to my thought experiment is simply this, it is conceivable that depending on how you recognize and then count the voter's intent the vote could have turned out as Green 40, Hughes 39, with one blank ballot. Round 1 of balloting thus could have been declared a victory for Rick Green, giving him the Chairmanship. After all, it all comes down to "the intent was for Rick Green so why should it matter on which side of the paper it was written". The same would fairly be said of Kirsten Hughes but if, and only if, the vote cast for her was even noticed upon the back of the paper.
Anyway, that's all just speculation and mental exercise. Officially, the Round 1 went down 39-39-2 and thankfully Round 2 was clearly a (slim) victory thus not requiring Round 3.
I want to give credit to Rick Green who visibly took action to ask his upset supporters to not engage in disrespectful discourse between the two votes. Personally, I prefer to sit in the back with the guests in attendance - whether I'm likely to be in agreement with those sitting nearby me or not - and Rick was true to his word about insisting that the "R" stand for respect. Much appreciated. Similarly, almost unanimously my 39 colleagues who were not on the winning side pledged to support Chairman Kirsten Hughes and work with her over the coming many months of her tenure. I can't say it was indeed unanimous (and no, I don't intend to name any names) but while I didn't observe everyone, much less survey them in any investigative capacity, the disappointing was naturally felt but not bitterness or anger and that's a credit to us all putting the interests of the party ahead of ourselves - a common theme echoed by Rick Green and his supporters.
http://www.redmassgroup.com/di...
And the MassGOP isn't the vehicle by where challenges to his perch as Minority Leader are made. You need to win over the House GOP Caucus to effect change. (R)- Outside 495
Brown lost to a far-left candidate in November, who had never held elective office. Replacing him with a more conservative candidate isn't going to fix that very depressing situation. Candidates like Brown are our best shot, despite their moderateness, for us to win US Senate seats in this state. And even then, the shear mass of uninformed Democrats can wipe us out. (R)- Outside 495
As such, it appears that Counsel ruled that initials are not "names".
That's what I heard, but I wasn't sure if it was a joke at DeVito's expense. It's odd that both sides just agreed to count two improperly-marked ballots as abstentions, but it seems that only DeVito's decision had the potential to swing the whole election.
I can imagine the "hanging chad" jokes at your next meeting.
Only the State Committee member in question & God knows who the switch from Green to Hughes ultimately was.
Of course, that's assuming only one person switched.
IF both markings were noticed then I agree with you that I too find it odd that both campaigns would've have insisted on counting those votes due to the voter's intent. Then again, I wasn't involved in either campaign's vote counts or strategy so hey, what do I know?
You're entirely right that more than one person could have switched. Some of us were up late last night and have only had about 3 hours sleep this morning. If my posts are less than crisp than usual, well... that's why! :)
Short version, DeVitto and "RG" is a separate issue from how many blanks there actually may have been on the first ballot. Follow me on Twitter? Sure, why not. www.twitter.com/paulferro
However, even I - a clear Kirsten Hughes supporter - couldn't accept that solution since it was made abundantly clear by Chairman Maginn that the "voter's intent" was paramount in the counting of the votes. Such an emphatic statement provided absolute guidance without the legalese of a technicality in the by-laws. As such, I fully agreed with the comments of Vice Chairman Jeanne Kangas regarding "RG" while appearing to not fulfill the bylaw requirement is clearly intended to be "RG" & should be challenged. As such, the challenge was removed & never brought to a floor vote.
It's easy to say now, but had the vote gone forward there's no way I could've voted affirmatively to reject the "RG" ballot under those circumstances. It's not as if the race was between Rick Green and a hypothetical Randy Grossman but rather Kirsten Hughes, and the initials were clear, no room for bad handwriting to cause confusion or some such.
Now, the earlier action of having our Counsel - who was the person handing out the blank paper ballots - a few steps further away from the ballot box & table we wrote upon was unnecessary. We pay our lawyer to be a lawyer and lawyers often interpret documents in the most narrow range & scope as possible with all the legalese and nit-picky interpretation involved. Note, I'm not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be. I also don't think that it would've been such a big deal had there not been suspicion and ill will towards this particular person in general (justified or not, I'll leave that up to others to decide). Evidently, our Counsel is indeed, in the most practical of senses, a strict constructionist.
Just an observation but I've worked with him for a few years now & really, our Counsel is among the most continuity and institutional memory that we have if you consider the turnover of Chairmen & staffers.
I also don't think that it would've been such a big deal had there not been suspicion and ill will towards this particular person in general (justified or not, I'll leave that up to others to decide).
If I understand you, some people didn't even trust DeVito enough to let him stand close to the ballot box. Given the role he plays in the party, I think that's a problem.
To say this is about him being "a strict constructionist" is to ignore his creative interpretation of the rules, which lead him to discard Republican ballots cast in the caucuses. I don't mean to reopen that issue -- but I think, to be fair, you have to look at his actions in context.
That having been said, I view DeVito's ruling on not counting the provisional ballots to indeed be a strict construction of the 2012 Convention Rules that neither permitted them expressly nor ever intended for their usage (I served on the committee that drafted the rules). Again, I have no desire to debate the merits or fairness of the provisional balloting but simply to note that DeVito appears to have strictly construed the rules then and also last night. Whether someone agrees with his interpretation is a whole other matter entirely.
As far as the standing too close to the ballot box, with all due respect to my colleague who raised the issue, I see absolutely no reason for such an action and that the fear is unjustified. I suppose the reason for the request was due to fear of intimidation and I see absolutely no reason to be afraid of Vincent DeVito who was standing in a public meeting, surrounded by probably 200+ people, being video taped simply handing out paper ballots. I'm not here to canonize Vincent, I don't worry about such things until after someone's passing and even that takes two miracles. I know some people have issues with DeVito, such as Evan Kenney,and I make no value judgment on that. However, DeVito shouldn't be either feared or demonized. I've worked with him, as a State Committee member, for years and he's been nothing but a valuable resource. Yes, I understand others will vehemently disagree as is their right to do so.
I saw no reason to move DeVito a few steps over but then again I saw absolutely no season for another colleague to insist that the ballot box table be moved a few feet over away from the family of the late State Committee member Bill Nickerson (and I dare say that action caused more consternation than did moving DeVito). I chalk it up to the tension and heat of a well contested election for chairman. Nearly 24 hours later, after the dust has settled, no harm done having our General Counsel take a few steps to his right, especially if it made my colleagues & our guests more comfortable.
