As we approach one of the most important elections of my lifetime, I’d like to take a little time this week to talk about the importance of elections, and the even more important value of honoring the results of elections.
One of the things that make this a great country is a fair election process and the representative form of government. Every citizen has a right to vote for whomever they want to during an election, and the results of the election, either directly, or through the Electoral College system, lead to representatives being chosen by the people who will be governed.
Participation in elections has declined over the last couple of decades – particularly during off-year elections when there are not any national races. In the last Westfield election in 2011, only about 20 percent of eligible voters participated. This means that 80 percent of the registered voters in Westfield didn’t make the effort to vote for the very people who make decisions about so many things that affect their lives, their community, their children’s educations, and their financial future. To me, every election is important, and every eligible citizen should participate in the process. I know we all have a right to complain and express our opinion, but I find it hypocritical that 80 percent of the complainers don’t take the time to speak up when it counts – at election time! Please get out and vote this year.
I also think that the results of every election should be honored and respected. In Westfield, this isn’t happening. As you know by now, Councilor Brown resigned from his Ward Two City Council position. Our City Charter says that vacancy on City Council should be awarded to the next highest eligible and willing vote getter in the previous election. That person is Mr. Winters.
This is a very strange situation, but I think it demonstrates the importance of voting and clearly shows that EVERY VOTE MATTERS. As you may recall, Mr. Winters was a write-in candidate who received one vote. There was no candidate, other than Mr. Brown, who took out papers to run for that office. There were a couple of write-ins, but no other write-in candidate is willing and able to serve. Mr. Winters is the only one.
We have two opinions from the law department and one from the Secretary of State’s office that say that Mr. Winters should be awarded the seat.
He was the next highest vote getter – no matter how he got there.
The City Charter says we SHALL CHOOSE the next highest vote getter; and, IF THERE IS NOT AN ELIGIBLE AND WILLING CANDIDATE then the council can choose; and, IF THE COUNCIL FAILS TO ACT WITHIN 15 DAYS, the mayor shall make the choice.
Some would say the mayor can choose anyone. I happen to interpret the choice language as the mayor SHALL CHOOSE the next highest vote getter, and if there is not an eligible and willing candidate, then he can choose someone else. The only reason the mayor would ever have a choice is that council couldn’t meet the 15-day requirement (inability to reach majority on a candidate, lack of candidates, cancellation of meetings, etc…). The clear intent of the charter language as amended was to give the power of
choosing the council representative to the voters based on the results of the prior election, and only in rare cases where there wasn’t an eligible and willing runner-up, to allow the council or the mayor to make a choice. I’ve reviewed the 1963 Acts of Massachusetts, the charter language, the newspapers from that period that covered the issue, the referendum as put on the ballot in 1963, and the opinions of the City Solicitors and the Secretary of State’s office. It’s clear that the intent was to fill vacancies with the next highest vote getter that is eligible and willing.
The trigger for the council even deliberating on a choice is whether or not there is an eligible candidate who is willing to serve. It’s that simple. If there is one who is eligible and willing, the seat is his. That’s what the law says; that’s what our lawyers say; and, that’s what the state says.
There is no law that requires any minimum number of votes in a general election. The 50 (or more depending on the position) vote rule that some people have asked about, only applies to getting on the ballot, not to actually winning the general election. Winning is determined by final vote count – with stickers of write-ins counting just like any other vote.
See: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elestkr/stkridx.htm
It says: “To be elected in a general election, a write-in or sticker candidate must receive more votes than any other candidate for that office. There is no minimum number of votes required.”
Also see MGL Chapter 50 Section 2: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVIII/Chapter50/Section2
As you may know, Mr. Winters was part of the group that sued to city related to the land involved in the new Elementary School project. The judge agreed with the group, and their motion for injunctive relief was granted. The mayor and some councilors did not appreciate being sued by Mr. Winters, and feel that it’s inappropriate for him to serve on City Council. However, there is no law that says anyone can be disqualified from serving because he or she has sued the city, any employee of the city, or any other elected official. I understand that folks are not eager to work with someone who sued the city and the councilors, but THAT’S THE LAW. Mr. Winters was the next highest vote getter and he should be seated.
I happen to like the fact that Mr. Winters made the effort to speak his mind and do what he thought was right for his family and neighbors. That’s the kind of person we should want on the City Council.
This is an important matter. There are many significant issues that will come before the City Council in the next couple of months: replacement of the City Treasurer, setting of the tax rates, several large spending plans, and the annual city budget. Some of these issues will be very tight votes, and having one councilor missing may have a dramatic impact on the outcomes. It’s not just the one vote we are missing, but we’re missing the viewpoint and deliberative discussions that could help convince other councilors to vote one way or the other.
By not seating Mr. Winters, the City Council and the Mayor are saying “Your vote doesn’t count!” That’s the wrong message to be sending to the people who make the effort to get out and vote, and it violates the laws they all swore to uphold.
If you’d like to do a little personal research on this issue, here are some links to document that you may find helpful:
Asst City Solicitor Shanna Reed’s Opinion:
http://bit.ly/R4TLUS
City Solicitor Sue Phillips’ Opinion:
http://bit.ly/Qe3B7r
Secretary Galvin’s Office response:
http://bit.ly/UEFaXc
Massachusetts Acts of 1963, Chapter 342 (amending Westfield Charter):
http://bit.ly/Rdp54d
1963 Westfield Newspaper Articles:
http://bit.ly/TslnZe
Please take some time this weekend to review these documents and then contact your City Councilor or the Mayor. Let them know that every vote should count.
In closing, please prepare for the upcoming stormy weather. Visit http://www.ready.gov/ for some great information. Be safe. Happy Halloween.
Dave Flaherty, City Councilor
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not the staff, editor, or publisher of the Westfield News.
