Earn back public trust after District 16 dispute

We would like to reflect on the Senate District 16 race. In our opinion, Les Fossel and the voters of Senate District 16 were not treated fairly during the recount of the ballots. We, along with many members of the media and citizens from across Maine, continually requested that all disputed ballots be made public. What’s more, we steadfastly pledged to accept any outcome that resulted from a full, fair and impartial review of those ballots. Any such review of the ballots would not compromise the integrity of our election recount process. Unfortunately, we never got that, and now new questions have arisen as to how we handle close elections and the objectivity with which disputed ballots are reviewed.

Although it is true that the Maine Senate and the Maine House of Representatives ultimately seat its own members, the way the two chambers handle the process is different. In the House, for example, the eight-member committee that reviews disputed ballots and eventually decides the winner of the contested seat, is composed of four Republicans and four democrats. This committee makeup ensures that no party has the advantage when it comes to determining the outcome of elections. The Maine Senate’s corresponding committee is made up of seven members: three of the minority party and four of the majority party.

As it stands now, the majority party in the Maine Senate wins contested elections. It does so by first “provisionally” seating their candidate involved in the recount and allowing him to vote for or against motions relating to his ability to serve. The majority party then continues to stack the deck in its favor by establishing the partisan makeup of the Senatorial Vote Committee, which is responsible for resolving disputed Senate elections. A committee of four members from the majority party and three from the minority cannot be expected to review contested ballots objectively. Especially when control of the Senate is at stake, as it was in this instance.

The Senate Republicans offered several alternatives to this flawed process on December 4, when new members of the Senate were being sworn-in. One proposal would have allowed the disputed ballots to be displayed on a large projector in the well of the Senate. Every member of the body could then determine for themselves for whom the vote in question was cast. This review of the ballots would have taken place in front of the public and the media and would have improved the current process, which is cloaked in secrecy.

Another proposal would have called for an independent third party observer, agreed upon by both parties, to serve as the decisive seventh member of the Senatorial Vote Committee. And yet another suggestion would call for the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to review the contested ballots and offer an advisory opinion to the Senate as to how the votes should be counted. In addition to resulting in a much less partisan and more open set of deliberations, these proposals would have allowed for a speedier resolution to this divisive issue.

All of these offers were defeated on an 18-17 vote, with the “provisionally seated” senator from Bristol, Chris Hall, casting the deciding vote in favor of himself and his majority party. He did this despite a longstanding practice in the Maine Legislature to avoid voting on issues where conflict of interest potential exists.

We have introduced legislation aimed at correcting this unsound process. An Act to Specify the Public Status of Disputed Ballots would require the secretary of state to make available for public inspection disputed ballots arising from an election recount. We feel this is big step toward earning back public trust, some of which has eroded in the wake of this disputed election.

Paul T. Davis Sr. is Maine Senate Republican Leader; Chandler E. Woodcock is Assistant Republican Leader.