RATS Stealing State Elections In Maine -- A Measured and Thoughtful Response

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a newly elected Republican State Senator, I read with interest your editorial, “Senate recount bound for the proper forum”, (Press Herald, Wednesday, November 27, 2002).

You assert that the Maine Constitution and precedent indicate the Senate should settle the matter of the dispute over 44 contested ballots in Maine Senate District 16. Agreed.

However, your ethical stand becomes very squishy when you assert that it is “appropriate” for the provisional winner in this particular circumstance to “participate in deciding how to interpret the ballots” – or in any vote pertaining to the contest for that matter.

Here’s why: In the District 16 race, the margin on election day between Democrat Christopher Hall and Republican Leslie Fossel was two votes out of 17,794 cast. A margin that slim presents a reasonable question as to who won the contest. In fact, Maine’s Elections Law (Title 21-A; Section 737-A) presumes the necessity of a recount whenever the margin of difference is one percent or less of the total ballots cast.

Given that a reasonable question exists as to who won the contest, it is an affront to the voters of District 16 – especially those facing disenfranchisement if those 44 contested ballots are never resolved – for a Senator-elect in a contested race, provisionally seated, to participate in a vote to confirm his or her election. The chance that an individual who possibly was not the clear choice of the electorate would participate in electing himself to office in a narrowly contested race is no less egregious than an appointed judiciary deciding the outcome of an election.

However, if the margin were beyond the one percent difference (about 178 votes in the District 16 contest) contemplated in Maine law, the presumption of a clear win would exist. In that case, it could be considered reasonable that the provisional winner assume a Senate seat and then use their own judgment as to whether or not to recuse him or herself from participating in judging the results of an election involving them.

One other point I’d like to address is your mention of the use of pen to mark some of the ballots in question. You suggested that a dilemma exists between counting ballots that demonstrate clear voter intent, and discarding them since they were cast without use of the “approved writing instrument [pencil] available at the voting place.” Your argument rests on the notion that “use of the approved writing instrument is one safeguard to make sure ballots aren’t marked away from the polls and added to the total later on.” Really?

Let me assure you, pencils are as readily available “away the polls” as are pens. The argument is nonsense. In fact, “approved writing instruments” have a way of walking right out of the ballot booth, as any elections clerk can attest.

Should we disenfranchise a nervous voter in a busy polling place for grabbing whatever “writing instrument” is in their pocket when they find no none in their booth?

Finally, you say the “alternatives to having the Senate do this work are far worse than having the Democrats vote in their own self-interest.” I say there is another alternative: The Senate Democrat leadership must convince Christopher Hall to recuse himself from participating in this process for the reasons cited above. Then an evenly divided Senate of 17 Democrats and 17 Republicans can vote to lay out the contested ballots in the full light of day, and require that each clearly elected Senator state on the record why they personally would vote to keep or discard each one of those 44 ballots.

The alternative, which clearly diminishes our democracy, would be for Democrats to take advantage of a loophole in election law to take control of the process, permit Christopher Hall to elect himself to the Senate, and forever obscure the true outcome of the election.

I am ready to exercise my common sense in clear view of the electorate. My colleagues in the newly elected Senate owe it to Maine’s citizens to do the same.

As a newly elected Republican State Senator, I have followed with great interest the debate raging over the recount in Maine Senate District 16, in which only a small margin election day placed Democrat Christopher Hall ahead of Republican Leslie Fossel.

Some editorial writers suggest the Maine Constitution and precedent indicate the Senate should settle the matter of the dispute over 44 contested ballots in District 16. I agree. However, the Democrat leadership and candidate Hall have asserted that it also is appropriate for Hall, the provisional winner in this particular circumstance, to participate in deciding how to interpret the ballots – effectively voting him into office. That is plainly wrong.

Here’s why: In the District 16 race, the margin on Election Day between Hall and Fossel was two votes out of 17,794 cast. A margin that slim presents a reasonable question as to who won the contest. In fact, Maine Elections Law (Title 21-A; Section 737-A) presumes the necessity of a recount whenever the margin of difference is one percent or less of the total ballots cast.

Given that a reasonable question exists as to who won the contest, it is an affront to the voters of District 16 – especially those facing disenfranchisement if those 44 contested ballots are never resolved – for a Senator-elect in a contested race, provisionally seated, to participate in a vote to confirm his or her election. The chance that an individual who possibly was not the clear choice of the electorate would participate in electing himself into office in a narrowly contested race is no less egregious than an appointed judiciary deciding the outcome of an election.

However, if the margin had been beyond the one percent difference (about 178 votes in the District 16 contest)contemplated in Maine law, the presumption of a clear win would exist. In that case, it could be considered reasonable that the provisional winner assume a Senate seat and then use their own judgment as to whether or not to recuse him or herself from participating in judging the results of an election involving them.

Another point some are making about the contested ballots is concern over the use of pen to mark some of the ballots in question. It has been suggested that a dilemma exists between counting ballots that demonstrate clear voter intent, and discarding them since they were cast without use of the approved writing instrument [pencil] available at the voting place. This argument rests on the notion that use of the approved writing instrument is one safeguard to make sure ballots aren’t marked away from the polls and added to the total later on.

The truth is, pencils are as readily available away from the polls as are pens. The argument is nonsense. In fact, “approved writing instruments” have a way of walking right out of the ballot booth, as any elections clerk can attest. Should we disenfranchise a nervous voter in a busy polling place for grabbing whatever “writing instrument” is in their pocket when they find none in their booth?

Finally, some say the alternative to having the Senate tackle this issue – such as having the courts resolve the ballot dispute – is far worse than Hall voting in his own self-interest. I say there is another alternative: The Senate Democrat leadership must convince Hall to recuse himself from participating in this process for the reasons cited above. Then an evenly divided Senate of 17 Democrats and 17 Republicans can vote to lay out the contested ballots in the full light of day, and require that each clearly elected Senator state on the record why they personally would vote to keep or discard each one of those 44 ballots.

I am ready to exercise my common sense in clear view of the electorate. My colleagues in the newly elected Senate owe it to Maine’s citizens to do the same.

Kenneth Blais

at Litchfield, Kennebec County

Senator-elect for District 20

. . . Another point some are making about the contested ballots is concern over the use of pen to mark some of the ballots in question.
* * *
The Senate Democrat leadership must convince Hall to recuse himself from participating in this process for the reasons cited above.
The alternative, which clearly diminishes our democracy, would be for Democrats to take advantage of a loophole in election law to take control of the process, permit Christopher Hall to elect himself to the Senate, and forever obscure the true outcome of the election.
I agree with your conclusions. First of all, the incident of the "proper" writing utensil as being a basis to discard a valid voter's vote is hogwash and obviously shows the Hall and cronies, like most all other Rats, do not care about every voter's vote counting....just the "right" voters voting the "right" way.
Secondly, I no longer believe any Rat has any morals in leadership. You can thank 2000 for that. I used to vote, occasionally, for a Democrat, if I felt they were the better person and were conservative with their ideas (there used to be some that way). NO MORE. I will NEVER again vote for a Rat. They just want power, and they don't care how they obtain it: unethically, illegally, or otherwise. They are are party without honor, and the Rat party draws that type of people to it. [I do not, however, classify the voting population into this disgraceful state who are among the elderly, because when they joined the Rat party, is was a far cry from the socialist lying, thieving, people who now run it. I don't think these older Americans can or want to believe the party they joined so long ago has become nothing but an abomination.]

Don't think the Rats will ask Hall to recuse himself. It won't happen. They would rather "forever obscure the true outcome of the election" because they'll have retained a seat and, therefore, retained power. And that's ALL they care about.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.