Town of Watertown
A closeup of the 2017 Watertown Town Election ballot showing the Library Trustees candidate, including the description that the Town’s attorney believes should not have been included. (Note: the candidates’ addresses have been blocked out in red)
{This story was updated on Dec. 16, 2017 at 11:49 a.m. to correct the fact that the Library Trustee is a “public office” in the attorney’s opinion.}
The law firm that works with the town on legal issues issued an opinion that one of the candidates in the 2017 Watertown Town Election had a description next to his name that is not allowed under state election laws.
On the ballot for the 2017 Town Election, Library Trustee candidate Michael Hanlon had the description “Former Chair of Library Trustees” under his name. Hanlon served as a trustee for 12 years and lost his re-election bid in 2015.
The 2017 election for Library Trustees was unusual in that it had no incumbents. Leanne Hammonds, however, had sat on the board after being appointed to fill a vacant seat. She did not have any description under her name.
Three spots were filled in the election, and Hammonds got the most votes (2,536), followed by Hanlon (1,994). Daniel Pritchard finished third with 1,947 votes and David Breakstone got fourth with 1,738.
A letter from KP Law attorney Lauren Goldberg said that the description of Former Chair of the Library Trustees should not have appeared on the ballot.
Town Clerk John Flynn said that he believed that candidates are allowed to request an eight-word description by their name on the ballot.
“The law says you have to request it, and he requested it,” Flynn said. “They have eight words.”
Former office holders can have that description on the ballot, Flynn said, but only if it is an elected office, not an appointed one.
In a letter to Town Manager Michael Driscoll, Goldberg wrote that the eight word description can only be requested during a preliminary election, but not a regular or general election.
“General Laws c.54, §41 addresses the form of ballots at a regular election. Such statute does not authorize a candidate to request that any particular statement appear on the ballot,” Goldberg wrote.
The Library Trustees would be a public office of which a candidate can request being referred to as a former member in a preliminary election, Goldberg said, but the chair of the board is not an office.
“Applying the law to the facts at issue, therefore, it appears that the November 7, 2017 ballot contained an error,” Goldberg wrote. “Where the November 7, 2017 election was a regular election, no ‘eight word statement’ could appear on the ballot. For that reason, inclusion on the ballot of the words ‘Former Chair Library Trustees’ next to the name Michael J. Hanlon was inconsistent with law.”
Goldberg added that these standards should be used in future elections and recommended that Flynn and the Watertown Board of Election Commissioners should review the standards for use of the eight-word statement.
In addition, she confirmed that it was correct not to include the words “candidate for renomination” next to Hammonds’ name because she had not been elected to the position, but rather appointed.
This wasn’t the only thing that went wrong on Election Day. A number of the votes cast for School Committee were not counted due to a problem with the ballot collection machine at one of the polling locations. Normally, if there is a problem with your ballot, the machine catches the error and you are asked to submit another ballot. If a person selected more than 3 people for School Committee, this would be detected as an error and you would be given a chance to resubmit the ballot. Since one of the machines was not working that day, ballots were collected manually and not checked for any potential problems. It was discovered later that several people selected 4 candidates for School Committee on their ballots and those votes were not counted. It is very unfortunate that these people’s votes for School Committee were not counted.
I agree. I think a recount is certainly in order for SC as Lily Read Tripler won by such a small margin. Nothing against her, but it’s not a good start to have “won” an election that she actually may have lost and not the voice of the people. This is very unfortunate situation.
I second (or third this). We should get a recount for Lily Tripler if there was so much confusion on election day. I don’t feel comfortable with her on the school committee as the election was so close. If she won, fine, congrats. But it sure seems like her election is very tainted and needs to be looked at. Who can do this?
The deadline has passed to request a recount. I believe it would have had to be requested by the 4th place candidate and she would have had to gotten signatures. Also the original comment alleges that the ballots were not counted because too many bubbles were filled in. In this case, from what I understabbs is alleged, the machines should have rejected them and allowed another chance to vote for 3 candidates. A recount would not allow those votes to count because too many candidates were chosen on those ballots and it would not be possible to know who the person’s top 3 would be.
Thanks for the great info Charlie. This is very upsetting and looking at what’s happening in Virginia right where every vote truly counts it’s a shame we may have a candidate who did not really win. Is there any way to petition our local government to see if Mrs. Tripler actually won this election? Personally, I’m tired of our voices not being heard and the dark cloud now cast on this very close election puts a dark cloud over the entire term of the SC.
It is too late for a recount. The deadline was 10 days after the election, if I read the Mass. General Law correctly (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVIII/Chapter54/Section135) The other option is 6 days afterward.
Also, see my previous comment – a recount would not change the result. In addition, I will note this is only something alleged in an anonymous comment and the account does not claim that people who voted for 3 or fewer School Comm. candidates had their votes not counted. Only if you voted for too many (4 or more).