The Lawrence recount is over. Dan Rivera’s 58 vote lead increased to 81! Of course, Lantigua refuses still to concede. No matter. There is a new day in Lawrence…finally. Congratulations to Dan Rivera’s campaign team that believed they could make it happen and put the work in to make it a reality. Good work by Rivera’s recount team led by Dennis Newman…good group of volunteers from across the county. Thanks to the counters and tally people who were brought in from other communities to give an impartial reading of every single vote.
Democracy works most of the time…and today was one of those times.
Congratulations to the people of Lawrence and good luck, Mayor Rivera!!!
Please share widely!
The counters and tally people were experienced and professional. I have done a number of recounts. In my experience they are trying to do the job right, but don’t typically have the experience that this crew did. The Rivera recount team was well trained and experienced. I think the results truly reflect the will of the people.
I’m intrigued by Lantigua. He was practically arrested, twice, and he still lost really narrowly. Does he spread the goodies around effectively, or does he do something right?
But yes, good luck to the new mayor.
My sense is that he is to Lawrence’s Dominicans what James Michael Curley was to Boston’s Irish.
I have ever since the establishment made a big deal out of nothing with his desire to keep his Rep seat as Mayor. They made all kinds of BS arguments. But no one cares about Tim Toomey and Marjorie Decker holding Rep seats while being on the Cambridge City Council, or various other Reps who are still Selectmen. That was about personal vendettas against Lantigua, not the inherent wrongess of what he was trying to do.
Lantigua is not the focus of multiple grand juries because he chose to hold 2 elected offices at the same time…he is under investigation for corruption, misuse of public funds, fraud, and any number of other illegal actions. He has ripped off the people he was elected to serve. The personal vendettas of which you speak are the vendettas he holds against anyone who disagrees with him. William Lantigua is a racist who has demeaned the Hispanic citizens of Lawrence by bringing scandal and dishonor to his whole community. Good riddance to him.
…though I guess legal, which it shouldn’t be IMO. It seems an obvious conflict of interest.
Christopher, there is no conflict of interest. Voters elect their State Rep and their City Councillor. If they chose to elect the same person for both positions, that is up to them….as for “interests” conflicting, a State Rep and a City Councillor have the same interests: to do what’s best for the community they were elected to serve.
When a City Councillor is elected to the legislature, often the terms overlap as in the case of Cambridge Councillor/Rep. Decker. it was a savings to the community not to have to run a special election and have her serve out the final months of the council term. A convergence of interests, no conflict of interest. As for Rep/Councillor Toomey, the people have made that decision in repeatedly electing him to both positions simultaneously.
…the House district does not cover the entire city. I’d be concerned that the temptation is to favor the section of your city you serve as a Rep. even in the discharge of your mayoral office. If the district were bigger than the community then you might favor that community over others in the district. The federal Constitution bars one from holding both state and federal office simultaneously – I think with good reason – and the same should apply to state and municipal office. Plus in Lantigua’s case it just reeks of yet another example of his loyalty and concerns being only for his own power.
A state rep serves the people, but also the state, which doesn’t have every dime every town wants.
It’s a minor conflict, but it is a conflict.
To me the large issue with double-dipping is the double-dip. State reps make decent money, and (some) city councilors do too. That green should be spread to two different people.
There would not have been a special election to replace Majorie Decker had she quit mid term. Due to PR, a single seat special election is impossible. The Decker ballots from the 2011 count would be transferred according to the ballots and allotted until a new councilor reached quota. That technicality aside, I commend Decker for saving the city the costs of a new count (significanty cheaper than a special election)and having a place holding incumbent serve a measly few months before having to run again. She promised not to run for re-election to the Council when she ran fr rep and kept that promise.
Marjorie spared them the recounting of previous election results…thanks for remembering that distinction…
Toomey has long been criticized in progressive circles for holding both seats and it was used against him when Avi Green and Mike Connolly made runs against him. Voters sent him back both times. Decker would have resigned her seat after she won but rather than let a new count of the 2011 ballrs determine a new councilor who would serve for a few months she did not run for re-election and will no longer be a Councilor as of Jan 1st. I think Majorie did the right thing and hope Toomey does as well.
Mayor-elect Marty Walsh could still serve in the State House as a Representative. It’s just odd we would allow that. Even if its School Committee its inappropriate.
Where it’s called the “cumul des mandats.” Many, many people have been in the National Assembly from one district while being mayor of a city in a totally different part of the country, and maybe even on the regional council for a third place. The country’s centralized enough, and the parties strong enough, that it’s no problem to “parachute” someone in like that. I know they were looking at regulating this a few years ago but never learned what came of it.
…that one live in the jurisdiction for which he or she serves in elective office, so the French model wouldn’t work. It seems without even the pretense of concurrent interests the conflict in France would be even more pronounced.
Europe essentially votes for the party and not the candidate, at any level of government. And districts or ridings are simply geographic areas a candidate can claim to represent. Most British PMs do not live in their ridings, but rather are assigned relatively safe ones. In Germany you don’t even bother voting for anything but the party you want in government. Canada has the same situation, though its Senators are finally getting in trouble for not bothering to live in the provinces they claim to represent.
But rotten boroughs are nothing new, and parliamentarians have far less sway over what constituent services or pork a riding can get.
I’m just saying it isn’t particulary shocking to me after living through that system.