Who really won the District 16 election?

As a newly elected Republican state senator, I have followed with great interest the debate raging over the recount in District 16, in which only a small margin placed Democrat Christopher Hall ahead of Republican Leslie Fossel.

Some editorial writers suggest the Maine Constitution and precedent indicate the Senate should settle the matter of the dispute over 44 contested ballots. I agree. However, the Democrat leadership and candidate Hall have asserted that it also is appropriate for Hall, the provisional winner in this particular circumstance, to participate in deciding how to interpret the ballots – effectively voting him into office. That is plainly wrong.

In the District 16 race, the margin between Hall and Fossel was two votes out of 17,794 cast. A margin that slim presents a reasonable question as to who won the contest. In fact, Maine law presumes the necessity of a recount whenever the margin of difference is 1 percent or less of the total ballots cast.

Given that a reasonable question exists as to who won the contest, it is an affront to the voters of District 16 – especially those facing disenfranchisement if those 44 contested ballots are never resolved – for a senator-elect in a contested race, provisionally seated, to participate in a vote to confirm his or her election. The chance that an individual who possibly was not the clear choice of the electorate would participate in electing himself into office in a narrowly contested race is no less egregious than an appointed judiciary deciding the outcome of an election.

However, if the margin had been beyond the 1 percent difference (about 178 votes in the District 16 contest) contemplated in Maine law, the presumption of a clear win would exist. In that case, it could be considered reasonable that the provisional winner assume a Senate seat and then use their own judgment as to whether or not to recuse him or herself from participating in judging the results of an election involving them.

Another point some are making about the contested ballots is concern over the use of pen to mark some of the ballots in question. It has been suggested that a dilemma exists between counting ballots that demonstrate clear voter intent, and discarding them since they were cast without use of the approved writing instrument [pencil] available at the voting place. This argument rests on the notion that use of the approved writing instrument is one safeguard to make sure ballots aren’t marked away from the polls and added to the total later on.

The truth is, pencils are as readily available away from the polls as are pens. The argument is nonsense. In fact, “approved writing instruments” have a way of walking right out of the ballot booth, as any elections clerk can attest. Should we disenfranchise a nervous voter in a busy polling place for grabbing whatever “writing instrument” is in their pocket when they find none in their booth?

Finally, some say the alternative to having the Senate tackle this issue – such as having the courts resolve the ballot dispute – is far worse than Hall voting in his own self-interest. I say there is another alternative: The Senate Democratic leadership must convince Hall to recuse himself from participating in this process for the reasons cited above. Then an evenly divided Senate of 17 Democrats and 17 Republicans can vote to lay out the contested ballots in the full light of day, and require that each clearly elected senator state on the record why they personally would vote to keep or discard each one of those 44 ballots.

The alternative, which clearly diminishes our democracy, would be for Democrats to take advantage of a loophole in election law to take control of the process, permit Christopher Hall to elect himself to the Senate, and forever obscure the true outcome of the election.

I am ready to exercise my common sense in clear view of the electorate. My colleagues in the newly elected Senate owe it to Maine’s citizens to do the same.

Kenneth Blais lives in Litchfield.