Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fraud taints (Massachusetts) antigay measure

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Places » Massachusetts Donate to DU
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 06:03 PM
Original message
Fraud taints (Massachusetts) antigay measure
"...As the state's chief elections officer, the secretary should have denied certification of this antigay measure until he had conducted a thorough investigation into these allegations. The public should be assured that our ballot initiative process is free of manipulation and deceit. At the present time, the evidence suggests it is not..."



Dear Friends,

Our campaign for Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is in the news today.

Check out this Boston Globe op-ed in which I argue that the incumbent should not have certified the signatures for the anti-gay marriage ballot measure in light of significant documentation of fraud in the signature gathering process:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/22/fraud_taints_antigay_measure/

We look forward to keeping you updated! Have a wonderful holiday season!

Keep on,



John

P.S. We need your help to move us forward! If you have not already done so, please contribute today at www.johnbonifaz.com, and please urge your friends and colleagues to join us as well. Massachusetts law allows individuals to contribute up to $500 per calendar year. Your contribution today, within this calendar year limit, is critical to help us demonstrate our early viability!

The following op-ed was published in today's Boston Globe. Printed here in full with permission of the author.

http://www.johnbonifaz.com/node/171

Fraud taints antigay measure
By John C. Bonifaz | December 22, 2005

ON TUESDAY, the secretary of the Commonwealth certified signatures for a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that will begin a process to place the question on the 2008 ballot. He did this despite significant documentation of fraud in the signature-gathering process.

Within days after the signature-gathering began for this ballot measure, allegations surfaced throughout the state that signature collectors were using bait-and-switch tactics to deceive people into signing the petitions. MassEquality, a coalition defending equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, fielded numerous complaints of signature collectors who asked people to sign a petition to allow the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores, and instead collected the actual signatures on the antigay marriage form.

In the ballot initiative process, the secretary of the Commonwealth has the responsibility of certifying the validity of those signatures presented to him to ensure legitimate support for the proposed question. The secretary should not merely rubberstamp the signatures presented and pass this issue on to the Legislature, where the amendment only needs 25 percent approval of a constitutional convention in two successive legislation sessions in order to appear on the 2008 ballot.

Rather, the secretary should fight to protect the integrity of the process. The antigay marriage ballot measure should not move forward in the face of these serious allegations of fraud. It is the secretary's responsibility to conduct an investigation that should include a check on a random sampling of the names presented. Individuals should be contacted to determine whether their signatures were valid. If the results of that investigation confirm that signature collectors committed fraud, the measure should not be allowed to proceed to the ballot.

From the ratification of the Massachusetts Constitution to open town meetings, direct democracy -- participation of the people -- has deep roots in the history of this Commonwealth. But, in order to maintain the people's trust, the process must be safeguarded against fraud. If people begin not to trust the fairness and legitimacy of the electoral process, our democracy is threatened.

In response to the multiple complaints about the use of deceptive practices with the antigay marriage ballot measure, state Senator Edward Augustus and state Representative Anthony Petruccelli, the co-chairs of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Election Laws, have put forward a bill (S. 2251) to help rout out fraud in the gathering of signatures for ballot questions. This bill is a necessary first step to protect the process for the future.

In this case, however, we are dealing with a proposed ballot measure -- one that would deny basic equality to a great many couples in Massachusetts -- that remains under a cloud of impropriety.

As the state's chief elections officer, the secretary should have denied certification of this antigay measure until he had conducted a thorough investigation into these allegations. The public should be assured that our ballot initiative process is free of manipulation and deceit. At the present time, the evidence suggests it is not.

John C. Bonifaz is the founder of the National Voting Rights Institute and a Democratic candidate for Massachusetts secretary of state.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't get it
Here we have a candidate for public office that is busting his butt for civil rights and election reform, yet, in dual postings in the GLBT and Massachusetts forums, there have been a grand total of 2 responses in 18 hours?

Let's kick this, people. Give it a few nominations so others will see this. Email to friends and activists. All gay rights and civil libertarian and voting rights activists need to know about John's campaign for Massachusetts Secertary of State.

www.johnbonifaz.com

...and if you want to know what qualifies him to be Sec of State, go to www.nvri.org and www.afterdowningstreet.org.

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-24-05 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Responding to the incumbent's letter in today's Boston Globe
http://www.johnbonifaz.com/node/174&print

Responding to the incumbent's letter in today's Boston Globe

Submitted by John Bonifaz on Fri, 12/23/2005 - 11:47am.

The Boston Globe today published a letter by the incumbent, William F. Galvin, following up on the publication of my op-ed in yesterday's edition. Mr. Galvin's letter is revealing for what it does not say.

Mr. Galvin claims that he "vigorously investigated" the allegations of fraud in the signature-gathering process with respect to the anti-gay marriage ballot measure. He then goes on to state that, through a "comparison" between the anti-gay marriage measure and the petition relating to the sale of wine, he found that 14,288 signatures appeared on both petitions, "leaving 109,068 signatures..."

Yet, he does not reveal that he certified all of the 123,356 signatures filed in support of the anti-gay marriage petition. Why did he certify all of the signatures presented in the face of these findings? And why did he not publicly reveal the results of his investigation prior to announcing the certification? If Mr. Galvin suspected fraud with 14,000 plus signatures, then he should not have certified those signatures and he should have announced why he was not doing so. Beyond that, is it really a "vigorous" investigation to simply do this comparison? I argue (as I did in yesterday's Globe op-ed) that such an investigation should include a survey of a random sampling of those who signed the petition to ensure that the signatures presented related to legitimate public support for the petition. Mr. Galvin chose not to do that. The cloud of impropriety over this petition remains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. State investigating gay marriage signature forgery allegations
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/28/state_investigating_gay_marriage_signature_forgery_allegations/

State investigating gay marriage signature forgery allegations

By Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press Writer | February 28, 2006

BOSTON --Prosecutors from Attorney General Tom Reilly's office have launched a criminal investigation to determine whether workers gathering support for an anti-gay marriage amendment forged the signatures of some voters last year. The investigation stems from allegations by some voters that their names were on signature lists despite the fact that they said they never signed the petition. It would not affect the outcome, since supporters had more than twice as many certified signatures as they needed to send the question for legislative approval for the 2008 ballot. The question would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, overturning the state's historic court ruling. Massachusetts is the only state to allow gay marriage.

"Because some of these concerns raised allege the crime of forgery, these allegations were referred to our Criminal Bureau," Assistant Attorney General Stephanie Lovell said in a letter to Secretary of State William Galvin dated Tuesday. Lovell said investigators from the bureau have "contacted the complaining party to further understand the basis for the allegations." A meeting with activists from MassEquality, a group which supports same-sex marriage, is set to take place this week. A call to Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, the main backer of the amendment, was not immediately returned Tuesday.

Marc Solomon of MassEquality said the group has heard from more than 2,000 people who said they either didn't sign the petition or were tricked into signing it. "People were duped by trained professional signature gatherers," he said.

Lovell was responding to a letter sent to Reilly from Galvin late last week. Galvin said he wanted to report the allegations after receiving complaints from voters. He said the complaints broke down into two categories. One group were voters who said they were tricked into signing the anti-gay marriage petition after being told it was an amendment to allow grocery stores to sell wine. The second group of voters said their signature were simply forged. Galvin said that while the number of voters making the allegations wouldn't effect the outcome of the gay marriage question, the allegations of forgery are a possible violation of state laws.

more.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Massachusetts Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC