Sanghvi and Boyd Continue Intemperate Attack on Integrity of Special Election

Saratoga Springs Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi posted a disturbing statement on her Facebook page calling for a demonstration at the New York State Supreme Court where a judge will hear arguments about contested ballots from the recent special election to fill the Commissioner of Public Works vacancy on the City Council. It’s not clear what such a demonstration is meant to achieve. It is, however, emblematic of the tactics used by the Democratic Committee which seem to be an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the election.

Some Issues On The Special Election Results

I have previously written about the unfortunate decision by the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee and their candidate Hank Kuczynski to focus their campaign for Public Works Commissioner in the recent special election not on substance but on a false narrative. They repeatedly alleged that only the name of the endorsed Republican candidate appeared on the ballot due to some unexplained subterfuge by the Republican Party rather than because the Democratic Committee failed to submit the required documents to the Board of Elections for a Democrat.

It should be noted that the Democrats ran a very effective campaign to try to overcome the enormous problems associated with write-in campaigns. Mailing out pens with Hank Kuczynski’s name on it was very shrewd.

Despite this, Hank Kuczynski appears at this point to have received only seven more votes than his opponent, Chuck Marshall.

It is worth observing that there are 8,384 registered Democrats compared to 5,749 registered Republicans in Saratoga Springs. Considering the disproportionate dominance in registration, it is likely that in addition to independent voters registered to no party, Marshall received support from many Democrats. If this blogger were the chair of the Democratic Committee, this would have been extremely troubling to me and would have resulted in asking some serious questions about why my party underperformed so severely.

The Challenged Ballots

The court case to be heard Friday involves a number of ballots that have been challenged for various reasons. In one case, a voter wrote in “Chuck Kuczynski,” for example.

The vast majority of the one hundred and six ballots challenged were for ballots where voters, in addition to writing in Hank Kuczynski’s name, wrote or drew other things on the ballot.

This is an image of the special election ballot. I have highlighted some key text from the ballot that warns that making marks on the ballot outside the box designated for writing in a candidate could invalidate the ballot.

To make it more readable, the following is an enlargement of the text circled above.

The courts have shown extraordinary tolerance regarding write-in ballots where the candidate’s name was misspelled. As long as a convincing argument could be made that the voters intended to vote for a candidate, the fact that they misspelled the candidate’s name does not invalidate the ballot.

The courts have been far more rigid about writing anything other than the candidate’s name on the ballot. This is because such writing historically has been exploited by political machines. There is a history of using markings on ballots for improper reasons. Consider the following scenario:

John Doe agrees, for whatever reason, to assure candidate David X that he will vote for him. David X tells John Doe that to verify that he voted correctly, he must make an agreed-upon mark on the ballot so that when David X inspects the ballot, he can confirm that John has followed through on his commitment.

The only writing on the ballot must be the name of the candidate.

Challenges to ballots because of writing anything on the ballot other than the candidate’s name or putting marks on the ballot outside of the signature box are common and perfectly legitimate. They are not as Gordon Boyd has depicted them “[Republicans] latest attempt to win an election by blocking the will of the voters.”

The Chuck Marshall I know

The Democratic Committee has also tried to play on the fear and anger many people feel about President Trump. They have tried to suggest to people that voting for Chuck Marshall on the Republican Party line somehow showed support for Trump.

Interestingly Chuck Marshall was a write-in voter in the Presidential election. He wrote in his daughter’s name. When I asked him why he wrote in her name rather than his son’s he answered that it was time to have a woman president.

Hypocrisy And Cynicism

There is an argument to be made that the violation of the law regarding ballots should be ignored because voters took the time and effort to show up and try to do a write in. Ignorance and failure to adhere to the requirements stated on the ballot for write ins should be forgiven.

I sympathize with this position, and having talked to Chuck Marshall, I know he does as well.

The problem with this argument is that the people asserting this and shrilly attacking Marshall have a documented history of the most ruthless politics. This blogger has written about this behavior extensively. Anyone who has observed the leadership of the Democratic Committee’s campaigning surely realizes that if the situation were reversed, they would not hesitate to challenge the Republican ballots. For them to self-righteously carry on about the Republicans’ challenging ballots is hypocritical to the point of being embarrassing.

There is a sad irony that while claiming that they are trying to protect democracy by behaving in such a toxic manner, they are undermining people’s faith in our institutions. They are mirroring the very behavior of the 2020 election deniers in undermining the faith in our elections. You may disagree with the law that allows some of the write in ballots to be challenged. You may believe that Marshall should not have exercised his right regarding the law to challenge these ballots, but to urge people to show up at a court of law claiming that their rights were violated as Minita Sanghvi, Gordon Boyd, and Otis Maxwell have done is to imitate the very people they claim to be the enemies of democracy.

I am tired of all this toxic partisanship, as I am sure many of this blog’s readers are. I firmly believe that Chuck Marshall’s campaign never stooped to invective. His credentials are impeccable, and he campaigned on those credentials. I hope he prevails, but if the judge hearing the case on the ballots rules that Hank Kuczynski won, I will accept that verdict and simply prepare myself to work hard in November to elect the best people. Our city deserves the best, and I hope people will not allow this ugly business to discourage them from participating in local politics.