Pinga/Alves: Rhode Island Supreme Court’s Fatal – yet Inadvertant? – Inaction
In view of the stunning effect – the voiding of an election – of their non-action yesterday in the matter of Stephen Alves’ request for a new election, I wonder if the RI Supreme Court was simply unaware in pragmatic terms of the effect of their decision in the context of dates and ballot printing deadlines.
The cutoff date for printing ballots seems to be October 20. Accordingly, whatever happens at that hearing before the Supreme Court on October 23 matters not. However they eventually decide – even if they uphold the three ballot counts and the ruling by the BOE – another primary election will have to be held. (It should be noted, though it is a secondary consideration at this point, that another general election will also have to be held.)
The Supreme Court, then, would be giving the losing candidate a do-over. With no factual reason to do so, they would be stepping into a duly held election with a winner recognized by the duly appointed authority and ordering that a second election take place.
“No factual reason”. Let’s review that. The smallest margin by which Michael Pinga won any of the ballot counts was seventeen. The West Warwick Board of Canvassers has stated that possibly up to ten Republicans may have voted in this Democrat primary. Further, there are apparently three ballots for which signature cards cannot be found. Set aside the fact that these irregularities, presumed to be clerical and accidental, were found acceptable in the Lynch/Bennett race, not to mention in so many other elections. More fundamentally, those thirteen ballots are insufficient to make up Mr. Alves’ vote deficit.
In short, it is not that there is a flimsy basis to revisit this election. It is that there is no basis to do so.
And this is the crux of the matter. The RI Supreme Court is now being criticized for interceding, with no basis whatsoever, in a fundamental and critically important democratic process and for doing so deliberately.
This I refuse to believe. This was not done knowingly. It is some sort of terrible misunderstanding – once again, probably clerical in nature – on the part of the honorable court. It is easily and swiftly remedied.
RISP Investigation?
Ch 12 just ran a story about the State Police conducting an investigation at a Senior Housing project in WW.
The entire state is now witnessing the REAL Alves in action.
As for the RI State Police investigation: Why?
According to Ch 12 it is because Alves lost there 2:1?
What about Clyde Towers where the numbers were reversed?
Are the State Police also investigating Clyde Towers?
Sounds like Alves is grasping at straws…
And where do the State Police come off questioning voters?
This smacks of a Police Stae action! By a Democrat?
Can you imagine being 85 years old, living at Msgr DeAngelis Manor, and having some stranger with a badge, knocking at your door to find out if you voted in the primary? Can you imagine these poor old folks thinking they might have done something illegal?
Alves wants to win at any cost….
But he needs to remember that he has put into play a double edged sword that might swing back and cut his numbers?
Perhaps I have not been paying close enough attention (and that may be the case), but why do you say that however the Court decides another primary election will have to be held? Did they, a lower court, or the BOE order that Pinga not appear on the general election ballot? If not, then the SOS has no reason to not print the ballot with Pinga on it as the only candidate.
The Supreme Court had no trouble making a decision in the Lynch/Bennett election, but they delay a decision on the Pinga/Alves race. After losing two elections and a recount, Steven Alves is still hanging on.
Let’s not forget that there is no other candidate on the ballot. There was supposed to be, but the candidate, who was appointed by the State Republican Chairman, was not allowed to appear on the ballot. According to the State Supreme Court, it took too long to file a brief. As a result, there is no Republican on the ballot.
So, let’s recap: Alves’ Republlican opponent is kept off the ballot because it took a few weeks to file, and he seems to be getting extra chances in the primary, at least in part to the State Supreme Court. Interesting.
Though admittedly corrupt scum, Alves might do some good next year (if he comes back) by sticking the knife in the unions backs and implementing 401k’s.
As a matter of fact, with 2 BILLION dollars just evaporated from the pension fund Carcieri should be calling N-O-W for a special session to implement 401k’s immediately for all vested, unvested, revested and anyone else not actually retired.
Bob Walsh’s Pollyannish “everything will be solved in ‘only’ 23 years because we’re guaranteed an 8% return” just ran into the reality of a -40% equity market.
Reminder-it took TWENTY FIVE YEARS for the Dow to return to its pre-crash levels after 1929.
Oh, here we go with the union canard again.
Steve Alves is an indefensible thug, pure and simple. Reasonable pro- and anti-union people alike can agree on that. His La Casa Nostra tactics are not welcome in this state.
>>Steve Alves is an indefensible thug, pure and simple. Reasonable pro- and anti-union people alike can agree on that. His La Casa Nostra tactics are not welcome in this state.
Huh?
He’s part of the Democrat leadership.
Just as is (about to be was) Paulie Moura.
Sounds pretty “welcome’ in this state to me … at least to the Democrat wing of the state.
The RI Supreme Court has issued an order staying the Board of Election’s certification to Pinga.
Until he is certified, his name cannot appear on the ballot.
Frank Williams is once again changing the laws as he sees fit…
At least this time around,his abuse of power is so open and blatant that ALL Rhode Islanders are beginning to shake their heads in disbelief.
Give him a personal call to tell him what you think: 222-3290
“people alike can agree on that. His La Casa Nostra tactics are not welcome in this state.”
Indeed we can and do.
OK, Aldo, thank you, I did not know the Court had stayed the certification of the primary election. I also see online already that Saturday’s ProJo will include a piece about the SOS asking the Court to make a decision in time for the SOS to know what to print on the ballot. I guess we’ll see the Court’s response to that on Tuesday.