Bob Frenier: Keeping the vote sacred - VTDigger
 

Bob Frenier: Keeping the vote sacred

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Bob Frenier, a newly elected Republican representative to the Vermont House from the Orange-1 district. A Chelsea area resident since 1992, he is an active trustee of the Chelsea Health Center and a former volunteer firefighter/EMT.

Democrats and Progressives in the Vermont Legislature are about to override a local election that was conducted correctly and lawfully by experienced town clerks and certified by a Vermont court. They are using the Legislature’s constitutional authority to rule on the “qualifications and elections” of its members to override the election of a Republican by counting the votes in the Orange-1 District for a third time.

There are several troubling aspects to this. One is that the original vote count wasn’t all that close and the closely supervised recount changed only one vote. The original hand or tabulator vote count in the six towns of the Orange-1 District showed Republican challenger Bob Frenier won the election with 1,853 votes while incumbent Progressive Susan Hatch Davis received only 1,845 votes. An all-tabulator recount and court certification process showed Davis’ vote remained unchanged at 1,845 while Frenier lost one vote and got 1,852. Why is a third count needed?

Another sobering element is the re-recount will be done by legislators themselves, not election professionals, and according to rules of the majority party’s own making, not according Vermont election statutes. The majority party specifically rejected a minority party amendment that would have required any further vote counting to be conducted according to Vermont law. The partisan nature of that decision offers Vermonters no constitutional or statutory assurances the will of Orange-1 voters will be respected.

What losing candidate in a future close election will accept the outcome of a court-certified recount if they can address their grievances to their party colleagues in the Legislature, even if no meaningful procedural errors can be cited?

 

In her report to the Legislature, Government Operations chair Maida Townsend, D-South Burlington, said the main reason for wanting a third count of the votes was that, BEFORE ballots were inserted into the tabulator, they had not been inspected for stray marks on the paper that might have altered the tabulators legendary reputation for accuracy. She ignored the fact that state law requires such inspections AFTER the tabulator count and she presented no evidence to the full House that any stray marks even existed.

Thetford Town Clerk Tracy Borst disputed Rep. Townsend’s allegations in a letter to House Speaker Mitzi Johnson and other state officials. “The ballots were viewed first, as they went into the tabulator, then either viewed a second time for voter intent, or counted (viewed) a second and third time if they were in the hand count pile. Visual inspection is certainly part of our procedures. In my opinion, the recount team did their due diligence, followed procedures, and confirmed the results. Representative Townsend is mistaken if she believes the ballots were not visually inspected in the recount process. This all could have been clarified if the officials that conducted the recount had been invited to testify.”

The impact of this fact-free legislative decision to interfere in Vermont’s non-partisan election process will be considerable for some time to come unless House Democrats reconsider. What losing candidate in a future close election will accept the outcome of a court-certified recount if they can address their grievances to their party colleagues in the Legislature, even if no meaningful procedural errors can be cited?

More importantly, how can Vermont voters be guaranteed their votes will always be counted in a fair and non-partisan way if this third counting of the ballots in Orange-1 is allowed to be conducted for spurious reasons by legislators who voted along party lines to ignore existing law when they count votes? Alexander Hamilton said, “This great source of free government, popular election, should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed.” Our own Vermont constitution has similar sentiments: “That all elections ought to be free and without corruption …”

But based on a sloppy investigation that misrepresented crucial facts, the Vermont House of Representatives has chosen along party lines to override a court-certified election result. So their new vote count will be neither “perfectly pure” nor guaranteed to be conducted “without corruption.” Since all the traditional safeguards have been removed, House Speaker Johnson needs to review all the facts and put a stop to this before real damage is done to Vermont’s sacred tradition of non-partisan elections.

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Bob Frenier: Keeping the vote sacred"