Easthampton recount confirms $6.9 override passed

EASTHAMPTON — A recount of the Proposition 2 1/2 vote confirmed that the $6.9 million override did indeed pass during Easthampton’s June 9 Special Election.

The recount took place on July 2 inside the City Council Chambers at 50 Payson Ave.

The final vote tally was 3,313-3,079, meaning that the initial outcome of the election remained the same, and the winning margin changed from 239 votes to 234. Unofficial results from the special election originally showed a final vote of 3,312-3,073.

A total of 6,392 ballots were counted during the recount process, including two bank ballots and five under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

The recount, which took six hours, started at noon and lasted into the evening on July 2. More than 30 election workers hand-counted ballots inside the city’s Municipal Building on the second floor, and observers representing the city and those who petitioned for the recount were allowed to view the ballot counting up close, in line with state Election Division rules. Observers could flag an election worker’s interpretation of a ballot, which meant the Board of Registrars reviewed the ballot and made a final determination on it. A total of seven ballots were challenged during the recount, and all of those were determined to be “no” votes.

The decision to hold a recount was approved unanimously by the Board of Registrars during its June 26 meeting. The board’s decision came after a formal effort by members of the Easthampton Active Citizens and Easthampton Republican Committee to trigger a recount was successful.

Petitioners gathered at least 10 signatures from registered voters in each of the city’s five precincts, which is required by Mass. General Law for a recount to happen in communities that have precincts and more than 2,500 voters.

Cathy Wauczinski, the chair of the Easthampton Republican Committee, said that claims were made that various residents received empty mail-in ballots or didn’t receive any at all leading up to election day, among other alleged claims from the public noted in the recount petition.

Wauczinski, who led the “Vote no” campaign and the effort to collect the signatures that triggered the recount, argued that a recount was necessary to make sure the voting process is fundamentally sound and for transparency in the election process. Representing Easthampton Active Citizens during the recount process was attorney Brian M. Gaff.

“This is just the beginning because the count doesn’t solve the issues. We’ll be looking at what possible follow-up there is,” said Wauczinski after the recount occurred.

The recount petition submitted by Active Citizens and the Republican Committee cited several other concerns around the special election process, including discrepancies between the city’s vote totals and what was recorded by the state, claims that some voters were mistakenly denied the opportunity to vote in person, questions on the handling of blank ballots, allegations that mail-in and in-office ballots were not properly secured, and claims that some ballots may have been cast by nonresidents or other ineligible voters.

Wauczinski told Reminder Publishing in the midst of collecting voter signatures to trigger the recount that she tried to report some of these alleged concerns to the Secretary of the Commonwealth Elections Division and was informed by the group that a recount would be necessary to have the state investigate additional concerns, as the recount process itself lies with the municipality.

“I think the biggest reason for the recount is the fact that there are people who are eligible voters who did not get an opportunity to vote. These individuals raised a concern with me, saying ‘I have no idea if my vote was counted or not,” Wauczinski told Reminder Publishing when in the process of collecting signatures. “Was anybody denied the opportunity to vote?”

City Clerk Mary Ann Giza confirmed to Reminder Publishing before the recount that there was an error on the city’s part where some mail-in ballots sent out did not include the ballot itself. She said about nine total residents called the clerk’s office to report empty envelopes, and those claims were indeed validated. She added that all residents who called to report they were sent an empty envelope were sent a new mail-in ballot leading to the special election, which is what the process calls for.

For those who claim they never received a ballot, Giza said that could be because each new year, voters must once again sign up to receive the mail-in ballot.

Giza said the clerk’s office must account for every mailed ballot through a state computer system, the date it was sent and if it was received. If a person claimed they did not receive a ballot, then that is also accounted for, and a new one is sent out to the voter.

Giza said the clerk’s office sent a new ballot to all the voters who reported empty envelopes. The errors that did occur on the city’s end have already been reported to the state, according to Giza.

It is estimated that there will be an annual tax increase of about $1,2000 to the average Easthampton home, which is valued at $418,000, due to the $6.9 million override. However, the city avoided major cuts, including avoiding the elimination of 35 positions in the school district.