GOP’s glass House

Several of the state’s most prominent and experienced Republican legislators have taken strong stands lately for ethical conduct in the public arena. When concerns arose that a Maine citizen’s free speech rights were abridged, Rep. Henry Joy called for an investigation that could have led to the removal of the Democratic attorney general. Questions about the reporting of lobbying hours led Reps. Michael Buck, Robert Daigle and Joy to file a complaint against the state’s largest environmental organization. Uncertainties about funding sources forced House Minority Leader Thomas Murphy to demand the tax returns of two non-profit public-interest groups.

Such a commitment to ethical conduct is both commendable and timely. Now that impropriety has been tracked to the very door of the House Republican Office, Maine people should be encouraged to know that such diligent watchdogs of the public good reside within.

Irregularities have been discovered in a nomination petition for Jonilyn Grant, a prospective Republican candidate for House District 92 in the Hallowell region. One signature was that of a woman who died four years ago. Two others have been determined to be forgeries of the living. The petition was circulated by Scott Anthoine, a staffer with the House Republican Office. It was notarized by Rep. Kevin Glynn, Republican of South Portland, although not in the presence of the prospective candidate, as required by law.

A subpoena requiring Mr. Anthoine to testify Tuesday before state election officials was delivered to the GOP office Monday, but Mr. Anthoine, now on a leave of absence in an unknown location, was not there to be served with it and he did not testify. Asked Wednesday by a reporter if his hard-to-find employee had received the subpoena, Rep Murphy said, “You’ll have to ask him.”

Such a nonplussed immediate reaction is understandable, given the suddenness of this unfortunate situation and the seriousness of election fraud. No doubt, once Republican leaders have time to gather their wits, they will work diligently and cooperatively with the developing criminal investigation and, once they locate him, will urge Mr. Anthoine to do the same. Surely they believe that the public must know if this is the result of the actions of one overzealous individual acting alone, if it was done with the approval or at least the knowledge of his superiors, if it is merely due to an unfamiliarity with a House nominating process both parties carry out only 133 times every two years. Who knows, a thorough inquiry into the signature of that one late Republican may even shed new light on the supernatural.