Here’s an interesting little conundrum. Mark Fisher just tweeted the letter delivered by the Mass. Republican party to the Secretary of State’s office that purports to put Fisher on the ballot. The letter reads, in full:
Dear Secretary Galvin:
In a letter dated March 26, 2014, we identified a list of candidates who were ballot eligible, based on convention and party rules.
In addition to those candidates, we hereby certify that Mark Fisher is ballot eligible for the State Primary for the office of Governor.
Please contact us at the number below if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Hughes
Massachusetts Republican Party ChairmanRebecca Levesque
Convention Secretary
Yeah, I have a question. What, exactly, is your authority for declaring Fisher ballot eligible? Does this mean that the party admits it did the counting wrong? Or does it stand by the way it counted the ballots, but is putting Fisher on the ballot anyway? And if it’s the latter, how can they do that, consistent with the 15% rule? Can the party just put anyone on the ballot if they say so?
Herald reporter Matt Stout tweeted that the letter is “being reviewed” by the Secretary of State. Looking forward to Galvin’s pronouncement…
…is that they are admitting by implication that they did not correctly account for the blanks, especially since the secretary of the convention signed as well.
Why should anyone be guessing about what is implied? Do over.
It refers to a March 26th letter of candidates eligible based on the rules. It does not say next that Fisher be included in that list of rule based eligible candidates, but rather that he be included in addition, and then they omit that he, like those in the previous letter, is ruled based eligible. They are saying that he is eligible by other means. I’m curious how they phrased this deal to the judge on Friday and if they misrepresented what they have done.
Galvin should request a more clearly worded certification.
and I don’t think you’re parsing too hard. I’m sure the difference is intentional. Which is why I’m very curious to see what Galvin does. He ought to request written explanation of the authority by which they’re certifying Fisher’s eligibility.
Everything in writing. Correspondence both ways. Phone? Bwahahaha.
They didn’t mention that. I feel they should have, if only for human interest.
http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/18116/mark-fishers-fate-in-hands-of-gop-executive-committee-as-is-bakers-coordinated-campaign
…of the Executive Board of the state committee can endorse in a primary, and if there is an endorsement then they can spend.