THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN TAGHKANIC

Carole Osterink

ccSCOOP Editor

12-29-09 - 11:00 a.m. - It was their end-of-year meeting, but before the Taghkanic Town Board got down to the business to reviewing and signing off on the town checkbook last night, there were two resolutions to consider—both, in the town that is the eye of the current challenged ballot storm, having to do with the right to vote.

Resolution 1, written and proposed by Councilman Erin Edwards, carried the title “Second Home Owners’ Right to Vote.” Like similar resolutions already passed by the legislatures of Copake, Hudson, and Chatham, the resolution supported “the right of second home owners to choose to vote in the town where they maintain a residence” and opposed “all attempts to disqualify voters, now and in the future, on the basis that their second home is not a residence.”

Resolution 2, proposed by Supervisor Betty Young, was called simply “Right to Vote.” This resolution called upon the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Elections to “undertake a review of procedures and requirements, consistent with the New York State election law, to properly analyze and consider applications for voter registration and to inform the public at large as to legal requirements for voter registration within this State.” The resolution seemed to pick up a theme introduced in a press release issued on December 22 by Greg Fingar, chair of the Columbia County Republican Committee: “The county Board of Elections needs to perform its duty under the Election Law to insure that applications for registration are examined to insure that citizens are properly advised as to what jurisdiction in which they should be registering.” 

Young seemed impatient with both resolutions and reluctant to take ownership of the resolution she was allegedly responsible for drafting. When Edwards, introducing her resolution, argued that the Town Board should show that they were opposed to attempts to disqualify voters by claiming their second home was not a legitimate residence, Young snapped, “The Appellate Court has already said you could not do that.” When a question was raised about the origin of the second resolution, Young said, “I had some people help me write it.”

Edwards commented that the resolution was “trying to make up rules that don’t exist” and went on to say that “the whole controversy should be left up to the Board of Elections.” When she reiterated the inappropriateness of having the Board of Supervisors involved with election law, Young interrupted her and snapped, “I said we can take the Board of Supervisors out.” Young went on to say, whether referring to the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Elections or the two resolutions is unclear, “I don’t like either one of them.”

Edwards questioned Robert Fitzsimmons’ involvement with the second resolution, which implicitly questions the BOE’s past competence to “properly analyze and consider applications for voter registration.” Edwards pointed out that Fitzsimmons’ name was on the resolution and made reference to the fact that, as Deputy County Attorney, he was representing the Board of Elections in an ongoing lawsuit. Fitzsimmons’ denied that he was involved in drafting the resolution, explaining that he had reviewed it, as he did all resolutions that come before the board, including the resolution that Edwards had written.

Councilmen Carolyn Sammons and Richard Skoda both took the position that the resolutions “aren’t going to change anything,” and Sammons suggested that “both should come off the table.”

At this point, a member of the audience asked the board, “Do you want to know what we think?” The man, who identified himself as Jeremiah McAward, rose to explain that he had owned a house in Taghkanic since the 1980s, and, during his career, had traveled a lot and often voted by absentee ballot. He said he was a registered Republican and implied that it was for that reason that his absentee ballot had never been challenged. He concluded by saying, “New York law is explicit; you choose [the residence you use for voting purposes].”

Another audience member then echoed what has been a Republican theme in this controversy: “[It must be determined] what is your principal or permanent residence.” When a woman sitting nearby countered that election law allows the voter to choose among any number of legitimate residences, the first woman said pointedly, “Maybe that law has to be relooked at,” seeming to imply that the “relook” should begin with the Taghkanic Town Board.

In the end, Resolution 1—supporting the right of second homeowners to be registered to vote in Columbia County—was voted on. Edwards and LaSalvia voted for it; Skoda, Sammons, and Young voted against it. For Resolution 2—asking the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Elections to review the procedures and requirements for voter registration—no one moved the motion forward, and there was no vote.

With only days left in 2009, the question arose about what will happen if the Board of Elections cannot certify the results of the November 3 election before the beginning of 2010. Fitzsimmons explained that, were this to happen, the current members of the board would continue in their positions until the election was certified.

It is likely, however, that the vote will be certified before the start of the new year. On Wednesday, December 30, Judge Jonathan Nichols will reconvene his court at 1 p.m. in the Hudson Elks Club to review the challenges to the remaining sixty-six absentee ballots. These uncounted ballots were challenged principally for residency issues, and in its December 18 decision, the Appellate Court determined that residency is not a legitimate basis for challenging ballots that have already been cast. In his December 22 press release, Fingar stated that “any ballot challenged solely on the basis of voter ‘qualifications’ should be opened immediately under the supervision of the Judge Nichols.” This presumably is what will happen on Wednesday.