Social Links

Run of Site Leaderboard

8 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. This suit is absurd–the Justice Department has no business suing Vermont for the Secretary of State’s supposed failure. The truth of the matter is this: the states, not the federal government, have primary jurisdiction over election laws. The federal government instituted the 45 day rule in 2009 because a federally run bureaucracy, the Military Post Office, was failing to get ballots to overseas service people in time. Instead of fixing its own bureaucratic problem, the federal government encroached upon an important states right. Jim Condos, please consider counter-suing on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional. I’d glad to help, if you want.

  2. The State Canvassing Board met on Thursday, September 6 to certify the final primary results. Those results showed that Annette Smith was close enough to Martha Abbott to be eligible to request a recount of the Progressive ballots for governor.

    Vermont election law requires a five-day waiting period between the date of the canvassing committee meeting and the start of a recount. This waiting period can be waived if all the political parties represented on the Canvassing Board agree. On September 6, the Democrats and Progressives agreed to waive the waiting period. The Republicans, represented by their party chair Jack Lindley, who made an angry rant against the Secretary of State’s office (an office for which his party failed to recruit a candidate, allowing Jim Condos to win the GOP nomination on write-in votes), refused to grant the waiver.

    The recount results were certified in Washington County Superior Court on Tuesday, September 18, three days before the federal deadline for getting the ballots to the town clerks. If the Republicans had agreed to waive the waiting period, the recount results would have been certified sometime during the week of September 10-14, allowing at least a week to get the ballots to the town clerks.

    The Republicans, both here in Vermont and in other states such as Massachusetts, complain that Democratic Secretaries of State are foot-dragging on getting ballots to overseas military voters. Yet here in Vermont, it was Republican delaying tactics that prevented the recount from getting started in time to allow for distribution of the ballots to town clerks well in advance of the federal deadline.

    If Assistant AG Perez and his staff had read accounts of Lindley’s actions at the Canvassing Board meeting on Vermont news or politically-oriented Web sites – the story was covered on both the Free Press and VPR Web sites, and on Green Mountain Daily, and perhaps other media as well – they might have engaged in a bit more background research before filing their lawsuit.

    1. Exercising ones legal right as defined by Vermont law should not be characterized as “delaying tactics”.

  3. Eric Davis may not be not entirely correct. As I recall, Jack Lindley’s rant was against the “collusion” between the Democrats and the Progressives whereby the Progressive candidate on the primary ballot was committed to withdrawing if she won, an act which could only be construed as a favor to Shumlin. I got the idea Lindley was objecting to some possible quid pro quo and not that he had it in for Condos.

  4. As Sandra Pinsonault said in this story, “a deadline is a deadline”. The recount and certification process started on a Thursday and was expected to end the next day. Instead it finished the next Tuesday. With the deadline looming, the recount should have continued over the weekend. This lack of urgency wasted 2 critical days. The recount was poorly planned and lacked leadership and co-ordination. It took 6 days instead of 2.

  5. Mr. Merriman,

    You obviously never considered the logistical challenge of getting mail overseas to a mobile command. Actually, the MPO does quite a good job, but mail never reached me on deployed Navy warships in less than two weeks. The typical delivery method was helo and spare parts/personnel won out when weight limits were reached. Prior to the advent of email capability on our ships, our only option was to wait for the ballot; Vermont law at that time required mailing within two weeks of the election, effectively preventing those of us deployed on ships and subs from voting. I received my VT absentee ballot long after the election was over in 1996 and 2000.

    1. Thank you for that insight, Mr. Culligan. I didn’t mean to show disrespect for the MPO, but I acknowledge that my comment reads that way. As a Vermonter, though, you probably agree that the 45-day deadline has disrupted and damaged our election process here in Vermont. So what is the solution? It is this: the Feds need to help the MPO do a better job of timely getting ballots to overseas service people. Emphatically, the Feds should not entrench upon Vermont’s authority to set a later-in-time primary deadline.

  6. I think we should collectively sell Vermont to Canada. The Canadian economy is among the healthiest in the world and what with the appreciation of the Canadian dollar over the last 4 years, I bet Vermont would fetch a pretty good price.

    Vermont has a lot to offer Canada. We have a low wage economy which could be very attractive to Canadian businesses. As many Canadian companies know already, we have 2 excellent interstate highways which more and more Canadian companies are using to deliver their goods to markets to the south of us, where presumably there are people who can afford Canadian products. By moving manufacturing facilities from say Montreal to Brattleboro, Canadian companies could reduce transportation costs and get their goods to market even faster.

    Shoot, a fair number of us speak passable French.

    As for the conversation about voting in the previous posts above, the federal government has constitutional authority (that means it comes from the Constitution) and statutory authority (that means it comes from Congress) for regulating voting in not only federal elections but state elections as well.

    Not convinced? Here’s a link to search the US Code.

    http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

    Type ‘voting in federal elections’ in the box labeled Search Word(s).

    If you finish reading by Tuesday morning, you’re welcome to come over for coffee.

    Now, back to the idea of selling Vermont to Canada…

Leave a Reply

Comment policy

VTD requires that all commenters identify themselves by first and last name. You may wonder why we don't accept anonymous comments. The short answer is: We want to keep the discourse civil.

You might rightly ask, since most online newspapers accept anonymous posts from readers, what makes VTD so special?

The long answer is: Anonymous comments don't support our mission. We are a nonprofit news organization dedicated to enhancing democracy through in-depth journalism. Our role is to foster a civil online discourse, and one very simple and effective way to do that is to require commenters to identify themselves. This isn't a new idea, of course. This is the way newspapers have treated letters to the editor since time immemorial.

As a result of our comment policy, VTD has created a safe zone for readers who want to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Donate Today

We're an independent nonprofit organization, your donation helps fund the digging, and, it's tax deductible.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Justice Department sues Vermont Secretary of State’s Office ove..."