Challenger Sonia Chang-Diaz has announced that she intends to seek a full recount of the votes in her all write-in challenge to incumbent Sen. Dianne Wilkerson.
Here’s her press release:
ROXBURY State Senate Candidate Sonia Chang-Diaz announced this afternoon that she will be seeking a recount of the vote from last Tuesday’s Democratic Primary in the Second Suffolk State Senate race. Citing the lack of a consistent, across the board standard for counting votes in questionable situations, numerous complaints of irregularities raised by poll watchers, and the strong potential for human error in an election night hand-count, Chang-Diaz began taking the necessary steps to request an official recount of the vote.
“It is widely reported by this time that there were a disturbing number of problems with the Election Day count, ranging from serious discrepancies in the standards used to count the ballots at the precinct level to precincts not counted at all. The Elections Division has made every pro-active and corrective effort to ensure that this process ran smoothly, and I genuinely thank the staff at City Hall and the Secretary of State’s Office for their level of professionalism and diligence throughout this election.
“It is clear, however, that there are sufficient remaining questions about the consistency and accuracy of the Election Day count to merit a district wide recount. Today I am beginning the process of collecting signatures across the district to call for a complete recount of all ballots cast. To do otherwise, I believe, would be to abandon the principles upon which this campaign was based.
“This campaign, from the outset, has been about principles of good government and helping people have confidence in our political system again. We of course recognize that changing the result of who the Democratic nominee is in this race is unlikely with a margin of 702 votes. But nothing about this race has ever been usual. As an all write-in election and the first in Boston since our switch the new voting and tallying systems it is open to an extraordinary level of confusion among both voters and poll workers. Ensuring peoples’ faith in our voting systems is something worth fighting for, no matter who the winner is in the end.
“We will make every effort to move quickly and decisively through this process to reach a closure that reflects the standards of accuracy and accountability to which all elections ought to be held, and which the voters of Boston deserve.”
There ya have it. It’s deja vu all over again.
Glad to read this. You may not win, but at least we’ll have some confidence that we know who did.
<
p>
Exactly. This isn’t about whether the result gets overturned – that might happen, but we don’t have to believe it likely to happen to want the votes counted accurately.
<
p>
This afternoon I called the Boston elections department to ask if they plan to count the votes in this election, and the first thing the person on the phone told me is “we did”. Some articles I’ve seen in the papers today say the same thing. But what about those precincts that set aside all the questionable ballots in a third pile and left them off the tally? Or decided not to count ballots that didn’t have the oval filled in next to Senator in General Court? Or where the tallies didn’t add up to the totals? Or where people were barred from observing the count?
<
p>
Boston Elections wasn’t able to answer the question of whether they can count the votes without a “recount” requested by one of the candidates. I don’t know if there’s a way for the people to protect their interest in getting an accurate count, if none of the candidates take the lead for them. And that’s a serious problem with Massachusetts election law, because this isn’t a “recount” – we never had a good count in the first place.
<
p>
<
p>
Fortunately, one of the candidates is taking the lead in the looking out for the interestes of the voters, and through this, we may get an accurate count of all the votes.
I’m glad she’s doing this. I was surprised to read in the Globe today about how the ballots were counted, which seemed to really contradict the bits of the law that were posted on this blog and others. It’s so important that this gets done.
IMO, the recount won’t change the results. In fact, there’s a decent chance that Wilkerson will win by more votes. However, I don’t think the votes were counted in a uniform fashion and I don’t think poll workers were accurately and uniformly told how to treat these ballots.
<
p>
Considering that this sticker ballot has been the most interesting and challenging aspect of the election mechanism this year, it’s embarrassing that 8 precincts didn’t count at all. In the face of that, anyone who can say with a straight face that all the other ballots were counted correctly is a flat-out hack and a liar.
you want to continue on? Run again in the primary in September of 2008.
<
p>
The gay community may be more willing to support you once this amendment this is behind us, one way or another. Right now, we need Wilkerson where it is.
<
p>
Also, by then hopefully they’ll have managed to have more than one black face in the Massachusetts state senate…
It’s not about Sonia, it’s about the people’s right to have the votes counted. Whether Diane or Sonia won the election, if we don’t count the votes, what’s the point of running again in 2008?
<
p>
P.S. It’s not about race either, but how many Asian legislators do we have at all, house or senate? (I think the answer is 0)
<
p>
Count the votes, and then it’s over.
Not against counting the votes, but even if she doesn’t believe she’ll win (as I will address in a later reply), it seems like she’s doing something that’s a bit of opportunism to me, though, that she only decided to run. If she really believed that Wilkerson is bad for Massachusetts, she should have announced that she would challenge her in the primary before the deadline, not after. Wasn’t one of the criticisms that Wilkerson didn’t manage to secure enough signatures to get a place on the ballot in time? It seems Chang-Diaz only ran cuz she was a shark that smelt blood in the water.
<
p>
I would LOVE to see more Asian, Native American, Hispanic, Arab, Muslim, Jewish, openly gay, transgendered, disabled, amputee, etc., etc., etc legislators in addition to African American ones.
<
p>
I think all minorities ought to start w/the House. African Americans worked their way up. There are 160 seats they could aim for. Like I said, there’s only one African American in the state senate. I do hope that African Americans, nominally would be more supportive of other (I’m really worried about the animosity between black and Hispanic candidates in certain locales) minorities, but they shouldn’t have to sacrifice everything they have and be martyrs. It’s sad when one minority has to be replaced by another.
<
p>
I was miffed when Cheryl Jacques gave up her state senate seat, only to be replaced by right winger Scott Brown. She was the only openly lesbian member of the state senate. Now it looked like we’re going to lose Dianne Wilkerson, as well, and the way we almost lost her, I believe, was simply heinous.
<
p>
I would support Sonia at some point in the future; I just believe Chang-Diaz should try to run for the corresponding House seat in her district first. I think she would make an excellent legislator. Maybe if Dianne Wilkerson seeks higher office at some point, whether or not she gets it (or just retires), Chang-Diaz can go for this seat again when it opens up (as it has to at some point). I am confident she would win.
The bulk of your comment is about the merits of the candidates. That part truly is over now: Voters have cast their ballots, and nobody can cast anymore. So drop it.
<
p>
The part that’s not over, is counting those ballots. That has not been done and it needs to be. That’s what this is about, plain and simple. Then we’ll see what the result was, one of the candidates will be elected, and we can move on.
What kind of a statement is that? As opposed to everyone else? Should Deval have run against Walter Timilty? The district already has a Latino rep. in Jeff Sanchez. Obviously, from the strong vote that Sonia got in many neighborhoods of this progressive district, people felt there was a basis for accountability and discussion, so be it.
<
p>
I just felt it was a bit opportunistic of Chang-Diaz to go after the only non-white state senator of the 39 of them.
<
p>
Deval has been involved in politics for some time, and African Americans have certainly taken their lumps and made their contribution. I absolutely support Deval’s candidacy, and he’s a progressive voice, and deserves it.
<
p>
Sorry, no…
<
p>
Minorities can ‘start’ anywhere, once they’ve worked up the ladder, JUST LIKE members of the majority, but it seems a bit opportunistic what Chang-Diaz did.
<
p>
I will not allow this part to be obsecured. I simply WILL NOT. I understand that people are criticizing Wilkerson for not getting her name on the ballot. NEITHER did Chang-Diaz! I assure you, that if Wilkerson HAD made it on the ballot, Sonia WOULD NOT HAVE RUN. They are both write-ins. Sure — count the votes… but be assured that Wilkerson won and the full vote count will only confirm that.
<
p>
The statement about ’bout the ‘merits of the candidates’ being over is disingenous to me.
<
p>
It’s like saying we shouldn’t discuss the merits (actually, there are none, so it’s just lack thereof) of Bush now that he’s managed to steal two elections, and isn’t eligible to ever run again (so why bother discussing Bush’s disastrous ‘pResidency’?). I will continue to discuss the merits of both candidates, and I’m glad with the outcome as it stands, but will continue to be pleased with the outcome as Wilkerson maintains her lead. Let’s go through this, so there ISN’T A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT WILKERSON WON AND SHE DESERVED TO WIN.
<
p>
What pisses me off is that the person above had to make te comment about ‘that part is over’. I wish the person above also criticized the person in another thread that criticized those who voted for Wilkerson. Until said person does so, I’m sorry — you CAN NOT CUT OFF DEBATE. I simply insist and will filibuster if necessary!
<
p>
I join you in the desire for a full vote count, but excuse me, you will NOT censor me, and I will continue to discuss the merits of. This whole thing began because many felt that Wilkerson was unfit for office. If those criticisms of Dianne can be made, criticisms of Chang-Diaz and her handling of her bid for office will also.
<
p>
I hope Chang-Diaz will put this much effort into making sure what she feels happened here doesn’t happen where the TRUE ENEMY is — Bush and the GOP! I would like to see her take a trip to Ohio this November and make sure the votes are all counted there.
<
p>
I understand the Ohio Democratic Party didn’t have enough people to challenge the Jim Crowe like Republican operatives that worked to deny many, many poor, Democratic voters (often of color) their RIGHT to vote! I hope she volunteers for that once this vote count is over.
<
p>
The points I raise have merit. And I will not allow any ‘Merits of the candidate’ line to stop those points from being aired as they need to be…
You seemed a bit reasonable earlier. Now you don’t.
<
p>
<
blockquote>The statement about ’bout the ‘merits of the candidates’ being over is disingenous to me.
<
p>
In other words, you’re calling me dishonest. Thank you for letting me know that there’s no point in continuing to discuss this with you, since you already know what we all think so why bother telling you.
<
p>
This “opportunistic” stuff won’t get any more relevant by your repeating it over and over. The campaigns for votes are over, the ballots all cast. The goal now is the get the ballots counted, not to convince anyone which candidate to vote for.
<
p>
Filibuster indeed. Enjoy turning this thread into what you want it to be, but realize that the shriller you get, the fewer readers are paying attention, or giving your “points of merit” due consideration.
If you read her press release, you’ll see that she doesn’t expect to close the gap. Nevertheless, it’s important to count all the votes, and review the procedures that caused this election to be miscounted. Otherwise, the same problems will happen again in some future election.
I think I could get behind it if she has conceded, but is fighting for the procedure and the principle, not the power. I just think it’s only fair for her to have to submit as many signatures as Dianne Wilkerson would have had to to get on the ballot…
The amendment battle is the only force driving the gay community support of Dianne? When all the other candidates (at least the candidates with last names ending in “Diaz”) will oppose efforts to repeal equal marriage? If you’re looking for a Senator with credibility to sway OTHER Senators on this issue, I’ve heard that Dianne comes up just a teensy short in that department.
that tearfully declared that the suffix ‘son’ at the end of her name, Wilkerson, is something that dated back to traditions of slavery.
<
p>
That was an extremely personal place she took us. She was willing to revisit the humiliating legacy of slavery, and ‘separate-but-inequal’ segregation to realize that what they’re doing (though hopefully it’ll turn out that it’s just what they’re trying to do) is WRONG.
<
p>
I have no doubt that between her and Byron Rushing, they were able to sway every other black legislator (except Shirley Owen-Hicks) and blunt the effect of the black churches that have fallen prey to their bigoted tendencies and get black voters on the side of equal marriage.
<
p>
No one else could do what she did. I’m sorry, but I outright reject your assertion.
This isn’t about Wilkerson’s support for legitimate causes. It is about her honesty and responsibility. It’s about her inability to be a model for righteousness.
<
p>
For legitimate organizations fighting the tough fight to align themselves as they have in this battle, distracts from their message and objectives. It further ingrains every negative perception of Beacon Hill and the process.
let’s see if she can grow from what she’s been through. She almost lost her seat. I would like to see her grow and evolve, and realize what a few indiscretions here and there cost her.
<
p>
If George Bush gets a chance to be president after what he’s done, and there’s a single Massachusetts resident that hasn’t compeletely decided to go on complete strike w/EVERYTHING in their daily lives until they are successful in making it so that he is impeached and tried for war crimes.
<
p>
There are far bigger fish to fry. Leave Dianne alone, for now.
<
p>
I’ve had people from Massachusetts that tell me all sorts of really messed up things… try to chastise me and attack me for statements I’ve made about George Bush and the Republicans… energy that could be better used to criticize Republicans.
<
p>
I’m sorry, but Massachusetts residents, are still in no position to point fingers at Dianne. They haven’t even managed to reject Republican governorship for 16 years in a row.
<
p>
If every Democrat in the legislature would vote to reject the bigoted amendment, they wouldn’t even be able to get the pittance of 1/4 of votes they need. Wilkerson has been a strong voice against it. On September 14th, 2005 she commented on the holdouts in the legislature who still hadn’t realized (at least at that time) that equal marriage is a civil right, but said that she was working behind the scenes and that we shouldn’t give up on holding a dialogue w/many of them.
<
p>
Sorry, but you haven’t done your job. How can an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature not reject these amendments outright? What do you have to say about you not doing your job? Well, I say, until you can, let Dianne do hers in the meantime.
… but I applaud this move. There seems to be alot of problems regarding differing standards. I don’t know if Chang-Diaz has a realistic chance of making up the difference, but they should be sure.
As someone who watched the vote tally Tuesday night in a Ward 12 precinct and could not believe his eyes–utterly unprepared, befuddled and disorganized election workers attempting to perform a task which utterly makes or breaks the election result–I beseech any blogger who thinks a recount is important at least to democracy if not to the 2nd Suffolk outcome to call 617-848-0875 at once to volunteer to collect signatures. The deadline is Monday at 5PM. The task is to collect 50 signatures of registered voters from each Ward (10 of them) represented in the district. This takes people with passion who care about fair elections in general and want an accurate count in this one–that’s where BMG folk come in. Please pick up the phone and clear out a few hours this weekend. The number above is the Chang-Diaz HQ. Getting 50 signatures in a JP precinct will be pretty straightforward. Signatures in the South End and Mission Hill should not be too hard to come by. Wards in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan where Sonia polled poorly will be tougher areas to get the signatures, but they can be obtained from the many in those neighborhoods who support fair elections. It’s just that more people may need to be approached and persuaded to get to 50. It’s all about how many people volunteer if we’re going to get an accurate count in the end and ensure poll workers in Boston are capable in the future. Those who worked on Sonia’s campaign know that the votes were out there in the district to send Dianne to the sidelines. With more people volunteering before Sept. 19th, the tally now could have had Sonia ahead by 700 votes. That’s a story for another day. For now all we can do is make sure this counting was clean and fair. Please call, lace up your shoes and give our city/democracy a few hours this weekend.
I thought it was 50 sigs all together. It seems an almost insurmountable task for Chang-Diaz.
<
p>
Not that I want her to fail or anything. I’m just saying… it will be hard, especially after they eliminate flawed signatures.
<
p>
At least, now, I believe it’s more fair, considering what Wilkerson had to be expected to do to get on the ballot in the first place…
yup, really tough, just ask any other senator
<
p>
in that case she had weeks AND there were the Democratic caucuses beforehand where virtually every candidate collected signatures. takes a good Saturday of interacting with the voters, usually.
exactly how many sigs does it take? Sorry, I’m not familiar with that process…
300 good signatures are necessary. Can be obtained from voters throughout the district.
to what Chang-Diaz will have to get to initiate a full recount. Seems fair, so I’m pretty satisfied with that. Thanks for answering my question.
To file for candidacy, you just need to get the 300 signatures plus enough over for safety. If you’re smart, because signatures get thrown out for a variety of reasons, you get well over that amount; double is not too many.
<
p>
For Chang-Diaz, she needs 50 valid voters in each of 10 wards. So she must get a significant margin over 50 — just to be safe against people who sign without being a valid voter, and because people may not know what ward they live in — in each ward.
<
p>
I hope the signature gatherers are well equipped and knowledgeable about ward and district boundaries.
Fair would be for the city of Boston to realize it fucked up royally, and count the votes without waiting for a candidate to force them to.
<
p>
As for the relative difficulty of collecting signatures…
<
p>
To get on the ballot, Diane Wilkerson had to collect 300 valid signatures from anywhere in the district (they could all be from the same city block and it’d be okay), and had months to do it. Further, she could’ve collected a bunch, handed them in, gotten them certified, and seen how many more she needed, months before the deadline. Or at least weeks.
<
p>
To force Boston to count the votes, Sonia Chang-Diaz needs to collect 500 signatures, but they must be distributed across the district, at least 50 valid from each of ten wards. And she has to get them all in by 5pm today, which means collecting them all in about 3 days (at most it could’ve been 4 days, because Boston didn’t even release an “official” count until Thursday evening). And there’s no option of handing some in and getting them certified and seeing how many are left to go, because the time is so short they’d all be certified after the deadline.
<
p>
What Wilkerson had to do to get herself on the ballot was easy.
<
p>
What Chang-Diaz has to do to get Boston to count the votes is very hard. And she’s doing it in the public interest, not just for her own candidacy.
<
p>
What’s “fair” about it? It’s insanity.
… for explaining the process to get on the ballot. I had assumed it required a helluva lot more legwork until you cleared it up for me. At least Wilkerson isn’t making that same mistake this time around.