New Questions on Massachusetts Petition Fraud Claim

[Ian David]

new questions on petition fraud claim
Submitted by John Bonifaz on Thu, 12/29/2005 - 11:32am.

Steven Sussman of Littleton, Massachusetts, raises an important point in his letter to the editor in today's Boston Globe.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/12/29/look_closer_at_petition_fraud/

Sussman writes that Galvin's purported investigation ignored the 109,068 signatures on the anti-gay marriage ballot measure that "could include an unknown number of victims of the alleged misrepresentation."

The central claim of fraud here is that signature-gatherers for this petition used a "bait and switch" tactic, asking people to sign a petition related to the sale of wine and then giving them instead the form for the anti-gay marriage initiative.

As Sussman points out, Galvin's investigation -- which, according to Galvin's own admission in his December 23, 2005 letter to the Globe, consisted of comparing signatures on both petitions -- would not have uncovered this fraud.

I agree with Sussman: "Galvin owes the citizens of the Commonwealth a more serious investigation."

More:
http://www.johnbonifaz.com/node/181



See also:

Look closer at petition fraud

December 29, 2005

SECRETARY OF State William Galvin claims that he investigated allegations that some voters were misled into signing the marriage petition, believing it was related to the sale of wine. The results of his investigation, as reported in his letter (Dec. 23), appear to be based on illogical reasoning.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/12/23/galvin_investigated_petition/


The 14,288 signatures that appear on both petitions could not include those who were misled unless they inadvertently signed the wine-sale petition twice, once legitimately and once through misrepresentation of the marriage petition.

It is the remaining 109,068 signatures on the marriage petition that could include an unknown number of victims of the alleged misrepresentation.

More:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/12/29/look_closer_at_petition_fraud/
(free registration or password from BugMeNot.com required)


See also:

Galvin investigated petition

December 23, 2005

I AM writing to correct false information in the column ''Fraud taints antigay measure" (op ed, Dec. 22) relating to the pending initiative petition on marriage rights.

The author falsely claims that I did not investigate accusations that some voters were misled into signing the marriage petition believing that it was a petition relating to the sale of wine. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have vigorously investigated these allegations. A comparison, initiated by me of certified signatures appearing on both petitions, revealed that of the 123,356 signatures filed in support of the marriage petition only 14,288 appear on both petitions, leaving 109,068 signatures when only 65,825 signatures were needed.

Fairness, honesty, and accuracy in counting are critical in the conduct of elections. Although I personally oppose banning gay marriage because I have seen no adverse effect from it on society, I must protect the rights of voters to petition, even if I disagree with them.

WILLIAM F. GALVIN
Secretary of State Commonwealth of Massachusetts

More:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/12/23/galvin_investigated_petition/
(free registration or password from BugMeNot.com required)

[msongs]

1. entire signature gathering concept is corrupt - needs changing ->

in california these paid parasites waddle around with stacks of petitions for which they are paid per signature. these parasites
proffer the petitions that pay the most per signature first, then go down the list to the lowest paying one. they have no qualms
about misleading people as to what the petition says, and frequently pressure you to just sign because "it will be decided in the election".

unfortunately the CA courts have said this political prostitution for cash is legal.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/clark2008.htm