Extrapolating Alves

With foreboding of a procedural mess of a national election, something in yesterday’s Stephen Alves story indicates a perverse incentive (emphasis added):

The change in the number of Republicans does not change Alves’ argument, Taveras said last night. In addition to the 15 questionable ballots cited by the Town Clerk, he says three ballots were cast that had no signed ballot application. By his count, the number of questionable ballots is still 18.
“This is no different,” Taveras said. “They should have all been provisional and not been counted pursuant to existing law.”
The Town Clerk has released the names of the 10 voters who are registered Republicans, according to the canvassers’ records.
In addition to King, Susan L. Harris, Angela Gonsalves, and Anne Helmstetter all said last night that they had disaffiliated after voting in Republican primaries two years ago. Of those who disclosed their votes, three said they voted for Alves.

So, it would seem that encouraging voters of questionable stripe to vote is a win-win calculation for a candidate. If the vote stands, he or she gets the tally mark; if it does not stand, he or she gets an excuse to request a revote (or some other action originating with the judiciary).

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
15 years ago

I guess we’ll know today whether the Supreme Court is as corrupt as many have asserted, or will actually rule based upon RIGL and find against Alves to end this absurdity. My money is on their giving Alves a “New” election for which ALL Rhode Island taxpayers will have to pay for. What Budget deficit? Of note, in Tuesday’s Warwick beacon, Board of Canvassers Chair made a very clear declaration, to wit: “Our elections law, like constitutional law, has a lot of checks and balances,” he said. “There are, in state law, methods for candidates to ensure if they have any challenges, they can voice them right at the precinct.” Candidates are allowed to submit names for poll workers as well as checkers and watchers to be stationed at polling locations that oversee the process and ensure the accuracy of what goes on at a given precinct. Kando pointed out that in many cases, candidates choose not to take advantage of the opportunity.” – Warwick Beacon 7 Oct 2008 Unfortunately for Alves, he did have over 55 people in his Primary Day election force. Specifically his SISTER, Donna, was the “Checker” where some of the “Republicans” ballots were cast. So why didn’t he challenge them at that time? Perhaps because he thought, as Justin pointed out it was “a win-win calculation for a candidate. If the vote stands, he or she gets the tally mark; if it does not stand, he or she gets an excuse to request a revote (or some other action originating with the judiciary)?” So how ill the Court “justify” any decision other than throwing out Alves’ appeal? In my opinion the answer is simple: They won’t for they view themselves as answerable to no one but themselves, RI law and the Constitution or cost to… Read more »

15 years ago

In the last election (2006) there were many more votes than there were signatures. In East Providence there were approximately 200 over votes. We complained back then and were told that it’s “normal” to have over or under votes as those who work at the polls can’t always keep track. Alves had only three over votes and he’s basing a challenge on that. I guess it pays to be a Democrat.

15 years ago

Well, I hate to say I told you so BUT I told you so!
The RI Supreme Court has just handed down their decision for the Lynch / Bennett and Alves / Pinga election appeals.
In the case of Erin Lynch, the court ruled in her favor so Bennet it out, clearing the way for her name to appear on the 4 November ballot.
As expected, the Williams’ Court has once again demonstrated they don’t base their decisions on the law or justice but on political expediency!
In the Alves / Pinga Appeal, they’ve put off any action until 23 Oct.
This is three days after the date that RI Board of Elections’ Executive Director Bob Kando has stated is the deadline for printing and mailing ballots to military and other absentee voters, the Supreme Court has effectively denied the military a vote in the November 4th General Election. Why a two week delay? This isn’t a priority? They have placed their own convenience above that of our troops overseas.
Another issue is that when the BOE’s decision certifying Pinga as the winner becomes final, Pinga then becomes the “endorsed” candidate of the “Democratic” party and would benefit from the straight ticket vote.
Something that would prove absolutely devastating to any attempt by Alves to mount a write in campaign.
How much is this fiasco costing the taxpayers?
Please call the members of the RI Supreme Court to express your outrage.
Chief Justice Williams: 401-222-3290
Justice Francis X. Flaherty (401) 222-3285
Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg (401) 222-3280
Justice William P. Robinson III (401) 222-3775
Justice Paul A. Suttell (401) 222-3943

15 years ago

I tried to disaffiliate in WW after voting Republican, and I, too, have remained Republican regardless. I’m inclined to believe their story, given that I have lived it.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.