COMPETENCY TESTED

It figures that after a campaign season of unprecedented, unwarranted meanness and just plain stupidity that the balance of power in the Maine Senate may well be decided by voters who could not follow simple instructions. If there were ever to be a qualifying test of voter competence, the ability to complete a drawing of an arrow would be a good place to start.

But there is no such test, nor should there be. The vote of the ill-informed citizen counts for just as much as the vote of the most knowledgeable; the hope of democracy is that the latter outnumber the former. The 163 voters in Senate District 16, roughly 1 percent of the total, who filled out their ballots in ways other than completing the arrow next to the name of their choice may, in fact, be as well-versed on the issues as anyone. Whether they circled, underlined or drew a smiley face, their votes should be counted as long as their intent can be discerned.

Now, after two days intense scrutiny by recount, a virtual dead heat remains between Democrat Christopher Hall and Republican Leslie Fossel. Mr. Hall led by two on election night, now he leads by nine, but 63 -or maybe it’s 37 or perhaps it’s 23 – votes remain in dispute. Both parties have declared victory and accuse the other of ignoring reality. The public, prohibited by law from seeing these ballots for themselves, are dizzy from the spin party officials put on this matter. The meanness of the campaigns was the work of party leaders, not rank-and-file candidates, so it is no surprise that the spin is equally nauseating.

The reason for this ferocious stubbornness? Without this seat, the two parties are tied 17-17 in the Senate: This seat breaks the tie.

Which should not matter in the least. This recount is not being conducted to determine who rules the Senate, but simply who won an election in one of Maine’s 35 Senate districts. Senate leaders of the two parties should make one final attempt to agree on criteria for ballots to be counted, this time in that narrower context.

According to the Maine Constitution, if the vote tally is certified as true by the governor and the secretary of state, all new legislators will be sworn in Dec. 5. If a seat remains in dispute, the apparent winner can be seated provisionally and that chamber of the Legislature, including the provisional member, then votes on making it official. Unless the parties agree to further review of the disputed ballots, that member will be Mr. Hall.

The framers of the Constitution could not, however, anticipate a time when the Republican Senate leader would publicly apologize – after the election – for the tactics used by his political action committee overall and in this race specifically. Or that the Democratic secretary of state would use his title for partisan campaigning. Or that the Democratic leaders during the recount process would engage a public-relations firm owned by the governor’s former communications director, thus tainting the governor’s appearance of impartiality. If nothing else, all conceivable conflicts of interest have been covered.

The Republicans have suggested that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court review the disputed ballots and issue an advisory opinion that the Senate could chose to follow or disregard. This may, under the circumstances, be a wise step – these justices are chosen on the basis of being able to make difficult, fact-based, impartial decisions; they are not appointed for life, but for seven years and so are held accountable. This step would, of course, be an admission that those who would lead the state for the next two years cannot make common-sense decisions about the intentions of people who cannot follow instructions, but, at this point, what’s one more failed competency test?