Massachusetts 2023-2024 Regular Session

Massachusetts House Bill H53 Compare Versions

Only one version of the bill is available at this time.

Old	New	Differences
1	1	HOUSE………………………………….No. 53
2	2
3	3	The Commonwealth o f Massachusetts
4	4	_______________________
5	5
6	6
7	7	FINAL R EPORT
8	8	OF THE
9	9	SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
10	10	TO EXAMINE THE
11	11	RETURNS OF THE VOTES FOR REPRESENTATIVE
12	12	IN THE SEVERAL
13	13	REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS OF THE
14	14	COMMONWEALTH RELATIVE TO THE
15	15	SECOND ESSEX DISTRICT
16	16
17	17
18	18
19	19
20	20
21	21	____________________
22	22	January 31, 2023
23	23	____________________
24	24
25	25	Table of Contents
26	26	1. Majority Report of the Special Committee on Elections
27	27	2. Appendix A- Minority Report on the Special Committee of Elections
28	28	3. Appendix B- Communications of the Secretary
29	29	4. Appendix C- Order Establishing Joint Committee
30	30	5. Appendix D- Order Establishing Committee of 158
31	31	6. Appendix E- Joint Records Appendix
32	32	7. Appendix F- Affidavits Submitted on Behalf of Leonard Mirra
33	33	8. Appendix G- Memorandum and Exhibits A-F Submitted by Kristin Kassner
34	34	9. Appendix H- Supplemental Memorandum Submitted on Behalf of Kristin Kassner
35	35	10. Appendix I- Supplemental Memorandum Submitted on Behalf of Leonard Mirra
36	36	11. Appendix J: Transcript
37	37	12. Appendix K: Resolutions Seating Kassner
38	38	1
39	39
40	40	Report of the Special Committee on the Second Essex District
41	41
42	42	I. Factual and Procedural Background
43	43	On November 8, 2022, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts conducted elections for various state and
44	44	federal offices. The election for State Representative was one of the many contests included on the ballot in the
45	45	Second Essex District, consisting of the Towns of Georgetown, Hamilton, Ipswich, Newbury, Rowley, and
46	46	Topsfield (Precinct 1). Two candidates appeared printed on the ballot for the State Representative contest:
47	47	Kristin E. Kassner (“Ms. Kassner”), a Democrat, and the incumbent Leonard Mirra (“Mr. Mirra”), a
48	48	Republican.
49	49	The Registrars of the various towns in the Second Essex District counted the votes on their respective
50	50	ballots and transmitted the results to the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, William F. Galvin.
51	51	Secretary Galvin’s office released the results of the total ballots counted for the State Representative election,
52	52	declaring: Mr. Mirra, 11,754 votes; Ms. Kassner, 11,744 votes; Blanks, 646 votes; All Others, 11 votes.
53	53	Secretary Galvin’s office declared Mr. Mirra the winner by a ten-vote margin.
54	54	Ms. Kassner thereafter petitioned Secretary Galvin’s office to order a district-wide recount. The recount
55	55	occurred in each town in the district, beginning on December 5, 2022 and concluding on December 8, 2022
56	56	(Georgetown, December 5, 2022; Hamilton, December 6, 2022; Newbury December 6, 2022; Ipswich,
57	57	December 7, 2022; Rowley, December 7, 2022; and Topsfield, December 8, 2022). Secretary Galvin’s office
58	58	released the results of the total ballots recounted for the State Representative election, declaring: Ms. Kassner,
59	59	11,763 votes; Mr. Mirra 11,762 votes; Blanks, 638 votes; All Others, 5 votes. After the recount, Secretary
60	60	Galvin’s office declared Ms. Kassner the winner by a one-vote margin.
61	61	On December 14, 2022, the Governor and Governor’s Council certified Ms. Kassner as the winner of
62	62	the Second Essex District and the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued a Certificate of Election
63	63	(“Certificate”) to her bearing the signatures of the Governor and the Secretary in accordance with the provisions
64	64	of section 116 of Chapter 54 of the General Laws, summonsing her to appear on Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at
65	65	the State House to be sworn in as the duly elected Representative of the Second Essex District. The Secretary
66	66	then transmitted the Certificate to Ms. Kassner.
67	67	On December 21, 2022, a full week after issuance of the Certificate, Mr. Mirra filed a Complaint in
68	68	Essex Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2277CV01243. In his Complaint, Mr. Mirra requested, inter alia,
69	69	expedited de novo review of ballots challenged during the election recount, and a declaration that the reported
70	70	recount results were inaccurate due to the “incorrect and unlawful” actions of the Registrars and Town Clerks.
71	71	He asked the Court to either declare him the duly elected Representative or order a new election. On December 2
72	72
73	73	23, 2022, Mr. Mirra filed an Emergency Motion requesting an expedited review of two of the challenged ballots
74	74	and sought an injunction staying the swearing-in of Ms. Kassner.
75	75	On December 27, 2022, Ms. Kassner filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that the Court lacked jurisdiction
76	76	over the dispute, to which Mr. Mirra filed an opposition on December 28, 2022. On December 28, 2022,
77	77	Defendant William F. Galvin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, submitted a combined
78	78	response to Mr. Mirra’s emergency motion and Ms. Kassner’s motion to dismiss, stating that although the Court
79	79	retained jurisdiction to address the suit it did not have the authority to enjoin the House from seating a member.
80	80	On December 29, 2022 both the Municipal Defendants and Ms. Kassner filed oppositions to Mr. Mirra’s
81	81	emergency motion for preliminary injunction. On December 29, 2022 Mr. Mirra filed a reply to all oppositions
82	82	to his emergency motion. In short, the parties fully briefed their legal positions to the Superior Court within one
83	83	week of Mr. Mirra filing his Complaint.
84	84	On December 29, 2022, Justice Thomas Drechsler, Associate Justice of the Superior Court, denied Mr.
85	85	Mirra’s emergency motion and granted Ms. Kassner’s motion to dismiss. Mr. Mirra filed his notice of appeal of
86	86	this decision on December 30, 2022 and a motion for an injunction pending appeal. On January 3, 2023 Ms.
87	87	Kassner filed her opposition. Also on January 3, 2023, the Appeals Court denied Mr. Mirra’s motion and Mr.
88	88	Mirra then filed a petition for injunctive relief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which Ms.
89	89	Kassner opposed. On January 4, 2023, a single Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied Mr. Mirra’s motion
90	90	without hearing.
91	91	Pursuant to Part II, Chapter 1, Section 1, Article 1, as amended by Article 64 of the amendments to the
92	92	Constitution of the Commonwealth, the House assembled on January 4, 2023. Having received a
93	93	communication from the Secretary of the Commonwealth indicating the returns of the November 8, 2022
94	94	elections for Representatives in the General Court (Appendix B), the House unanimously adopted an order to
95	95	form a Special Committee of the House to Examine the Returns of Votes for Representative in the Several
96	96	Representative Districts of the Commonwealth (hereinafter “the Special Committee”) (Appendix C). The House
97	97	appointed Representative-Elect Michael S. Day of Stoneham, Representative-Elect Daniel J. Ryan of
98	98	Charlestown and Representative-Elect Bradley H. Jones, Jr. of North Reading to serve on the Special
99	99	Committee.
100	100	Following the Special Committee’s review of the returns, it unanimously agreed to offer an order in the
101	101	hands of the Clerk of the House, ordering that: under the provisions of Article LVIX (as amended) of the
102	102	Amendments to the Constitution, the remaining 158 members-elect had been duly elected and were rightly and
103	103	truly chosen and qualified to be sworn in by his Excellency the Governor; that, under the provisions of Article
104	104	LXIV (as amended) of the Amendments to the Constitution, until a successor is chosen and qualified, the term 3
105	105
106	106	of Representative Mirra of Georgetown shall continue; that said Representative Mirra of Georgetown shall
107	107	continue to represent the Second Essex Representative District until a determination is made under the
108	108	Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as to the duly elected Representative from the Second
109	109	Essex District; and that under the provisions of Article LVIX (as amended) of the Amendments to the
110	110	Constitution until a Member is chosen and qualified, the First Middlesex Representative District shall remain
111	111	vacant. (Appendix D).
112	112	On January 13, 2023, at 10:00am in Room A-2 of the Massachusetts State House, the Special
113	113	Committee held a public hearing to further examine the returns of the Second Essex District election. The
114	114	Special Committee invited Ms. Kassner and Mr. Mirra, along with their respective legal counsel, to submit any
115	115	documents they wished the Special Committee to consider and invited them to appear and testify before the
116	116	Special Committee. Ms. Kassner and Mr. Mirra together provided the Special Committee with a joint appendix
117	117	of records. (Appendix E). Mr. Mirra also submitted a series of affidavits (Appendix F), and Ms. Kassner
118	118	submitted a Memorandum (Appendix G) for the Special Committee’s review and consideration.
119	119	The Special Committee allowed the parties to submit supplemental materials up until January 17, 2023.
120	120	Counsel for Ms. Kassner submitted a Supplemental Memorandum, adopted into the record through this Report
121	121	and attached hereto at Appendix H. Mr. Mirra also submitted a Supplemental Memorandum, adopted into the
122	122	record through this Report and attached hereto as Appendix I. The Special Committee secured the presence of a
123	123	stenographer to transcribe the proceedings of the January 13, 2023 hearing, which were livestreamed, closed
124	124	captioned and recorded on the General Court’s website. A copy of the transcript is adopted into the record
125	125	through this Report and attached hereto at Appendix J.
126	126
127	127	II. Mr. Mirra’s Allegations
128	128	Mr. Mirra alleges that the result of the election for the Second Essex District was called into
129	129	question by several administrative issues including, inter alia, changes in total ballot counts, mistaken
130	130	signature comparisons on mail-in ballots and the counting of “spoiled” ballots during recount. Appendix
131	131	E, pp. 4-18 at ¶¶ 39-40, 51-52, 62-63, 65, 68, 75. Mr. Mirra further alleges that Georgetown and Ipswich
132	132	Registrars erred in making their determinations during recount on a total of three challenged ballots. Id.
133	133	at ¶¶ 42, 54. At the hearing before the Special Committee, Mr. Mirra asked that the Special Committee
134	134	“determine that Representative Mirra won the election, or in the alternative, find that the election was a
135	135	tie, the seat is vacant and recommend a new election to the full House.” Appendix J at p. 14.
136	136	Mr. Mirra does not claim that he was denied due process during the recount process and agreed
137	137	that he was afforded the opportunity to have legal counsel present, to object to contested ballots, to fully 4
138	138
139	139	argue his position on contested ballots and to contemporaneously listen to the decisions of the registrars
140	140	on the contested ballots. Id. at p. 39. Mr. Mirra also does not allege any fraud or intentional misconduct
141	141	occurred at any time by the voters or the various registrars charged with counting the returns. The
142	142	Special Committee takes note of these statements from Mr. Mirra: “I think [the election] was held fairly.
143	143	I think every town clerk did their best to hold a fair and open election. And I think any of the issues that
144	144	we brought up today, honestly, are a simple matter of human error.” Id. at p. 44.
145	145
146	146	III. Legal Background
147	147	A. Jurisdiction
148	148	Pursuant to Part II, Chapter 1, Section 3, Article 10 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth,
149	149	the House of Representatives has the exclusive and final jurisdiction over the “returns, elections and
150	150	qualifications of its own members.” See also Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 375 Mass. 795, 815
151	151	(1978). This prerogative of the House is not disturbed by a judicial court’s adjudication of an election
152	152	dispute prior to the issuance of a certificate of election results from the Governor and Governor’s
153	153	Council. See, e.g., Banks v. Election Commrs. of Boston, 327 Mass. 509, 512 (1951). Up to and until
154	154	such a certificate is issued, aggrieved candidates may take full advantage of the court’s de novo
155	155	authority under section 59 of chapter 56 to enforce laws regulating the conduct of elections and to
156	156	petition for equitable relief or by mandamus. G.L. c. 56 § 59; see also Wheatley v. Secretary of
157	157	Commonwealth., 439 Mass. 849, 853 (2003).
158	158	The Certificate and summons delivered to Representative-Elect Kassner, coupled with the
159	159	formation of this Special Committee and our hearing on the matter clearly manifests the House’s
160	160	exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction in regard to the Second Essex District. See, e.g., Greenwood v.
161	161	Registrars of Voters of City of Fitchburg, 282 Mass. 74, 79 (1933). The House is now the sole arbiter of
162	162	all claims to this seat and any requests pending in judicial proceedings or actions taken by a judicial
163	163	court are moot. See, e.g., Wheatley, at 854.
164	164
165	165
166	166	B. The Certification Process
167	167	As discussed supra, the Secretary of the Commonwealth transmitted a certificate signed by
168	168	Governor Baker and countersigned by Secretary Galvin to Representative-Elect Kassner, summonsing
169	169	her to appear at the General Court on Wednesday, January 4, 2023 as the duly-elected Representative for
170	170	the Second Essex District and to take her seat in the House of Representatives accordingly. 5
171	171
172	172	The Certificate has multiple purposes. On its face, it operates as a notice of election and
173	173	functions as a summons to the Representative-Elect to appear before the General Court at a designated
174	174	time and date to assume that seat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Additionally, the
175	175	Certificate is to, upon presentation, direct the attention of the House to the question of whether the
176	176	presenter is entitled to be declared a representative. See, e.g., Greenwood, supra at 80.
177	177	Chapter 54 of the General Laws governs the manner, time and conduct of all elections in the
178	178	Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including challenges thereto. Section 115 of Chapter 54 obligates the
179	179	Governor and at least five members of the Governor’s Council to examine and tabulate the state election
180	180	results as they are received from the Secretary of the Commonwealth. The statute also explicitly requires
181	181	that, in the case of a recount, the Governor and at least five members of the Governor’s Council shall
182	182	similarly review the amended results and revise the tabulation accordingly. G.L. c. 54, § 115.
183	183	After review and transmittal of the returns back to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Section
184	184	116 of Chapter 54 of the General Laws then obligates the Governor and at least five members of the
185	185	Governor’s Council to certify the election returns and issue a summons for the elected individual to
186	186	appear at an appointed place, time and date. The Secretary of the Commonwealth is to countersign the
187	187	certificate and transmit the certification and summons to the elected individual. G.L. c. 54, § 116.
188	188	This procedure is an integral part of the election process and declaring election results is “an
189	189	indispensable adjunct to that process.” See Opinion of the Justices to the Governor, 362 Mass. 907, 912
190	190	(1972). It is this final tabulation and determination by the Governor and Governor’s Council that
191	191	effectuates the election, not the vote itself. Id. at 913.
192	192	Importantly, the statute then clearly and unequivocally prescribes strict timelines as to when the
193	193	Governor and Governor’s Council may take this final step in the election process:
194	194	No certification shall be made or summons or certificate issued under this section until
195	195	after five o'clock in the afternoon of the fifteenth day following a state election, or, in
196	196	case a state-wide or district-wide recount is held in accordance with section one hundred
197	197	and thirty-five, until the tabulation and determination under the preceding section have
198	198	been revised in accordance with the results of such recount…
199	199
200	200	G.L. c. 54 § 116. This timeline allows candidates who believe they have been harmed by the election
201	201	process to petition the courts for relief. That petition may include a request for the court to order
202	202	equitable relief or to issue a writ of mandamus directing a government official to take a specific action in
203	203	furtherance of a statutory or constitutional obligation. G.L. c. 56 § 59; see, e.g., Alicea v. Registrars of
204	204	Voters of the Town of Southbridge, et al., Mass. Super. Ct. No. 1085CV02624 (Feb. 1, 2011). 6
205	205
206	206	That timeline is finite. The Legislature, through the General Laws, has declared that individuals
207	207	may pursue election disputes with local election officials, with the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and
208	208	with the Judiciary until the Governor and Governor’s Council issues the Certificate of Election. At that
209	209	time, jurisdiction rests exclusively with the House of Representatives to determine whether the
210	210	Representative-Elect is entitled to claim the seat designated in the Certificate of Election.
211	211
212	212	IV. Findings and Conclusions
213	213	After hearing from witnesses, examining the returns and all other relevant evidence including
214	214	documents and testimony offered by Ms. Kassner and Mr. Mirra, a majority of the Special Committee
215	215	concludes the following:
216	216	1) The Special Committee concurs with Mr. Mirra and finds that no fraud or intentional misconduct
217	217	occurred during either the initial count of the returns or during the recount of the returns for the
218	218	Second Essex Representative District.
219	219	2) Massachusetts election laws are designed to prevent fraud and secure voting rights, not to
220	220	disenfranchise voters because of ministerial irregularities or omissions. See, e.g., Swift v.
221	221	Registrars of Voters of Quincy, 281 Mass. 271, 277 (1932); McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters of
222	222	Brockton, 385 Mass. 833, 844 (1982). Failures on the part of election officers to perform the
223	223	precise duties imposed on them by statute do not by themselves invalidate the votes or afford any
224	224	grounds for nullifying the count. See, e.g., Fyntrilakis v. City of Springfield, 47 Mass.App.Ct.
225	225	464, 469 (1999) citing Swift, supra at 278.
226	226	3) A new election disenfranchises thousands of voters so any complaint against its legitimacy must
227	227	overcome both the presumption that votes counted by election officials are legal and that election
228	228	officials as public officers act legally and with honest purpose. See McCavitt, supra at 846; see
229	229	also Talbot v. Registrars of Voters of Somerset, 281 Mass. 284, 286 (1932).
230	230	4) Mr. Mirra failed to provide any corroborating, objective evidence beyond pure speculation to
231	231	support his claims that the irregularities regarding tally changes, mail-in ballot signature
232	232	comparisons or unspoiled ballots that allegedly occurred in the count or recount caused actual
233	233	harm. He has not met his burden of proof in this matter sufficient to persuade the House to take
234	234	the extraordinary step of ordering a new election.
235	235	5) While the Special Committee came to a clear decision, supported in testimony by both Ms.
236	236	Kassner and Mr. Mirra, that there was no evidence of fraud in the conduct of the election for the
237	237	Second Essex District, a review of the evidence presented to the Special Committee does raise 7
238	238
239	239	concerns regarding human error and, if occurring on a larger scale, their potential impact on
240	240	future elections. While these missteps had no impact on the integrity or the final outcome of the
241	241	election, similar missteps in the future, if occurring on a larger scale, could affect future
242	242	elections.
243	243	6) As it did in its review of returns in the First Middlesex election, the Special Committee
244	244	recognizes the critical role that municipal officers play in our state and national elections and
245	245	notes the evolution of the election process necessitated by changes in technology and societal
246	246	needs. As was the case with the First Middlesex District, the minor missteps here, while benign
247	247	in the election for State Representative in the Second Essex District, also highlight the need for
248	248	continued close review and updates of the current regulations, training, policies and practices of
249	249	elections conducted in the Commonwealth.
250	250	7) Separately from his grievances regarding alleged procedural anomalies, Mr. Mirra also asks the
251	251	Special Committee to conduct a de novo review of three contested ballots he has identified from
252	252	the recount. We decline that invitation.
253	253	8) Mr. Mirra was afforded the same opportunities all candidates for State Representative have in
254	254	contesting election results and recounts. Parties to a recount may object to the calling of
255	255	individual votes for a particular candidate through a clear and fair process with the registrars
256	256	overseeing the tallies. The recount conducted by duly appointed local election officials are then
257	257	reviewed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, who has standing to seek judicial relief if the
258	258	Secretary finds plain evidence of incorrect results. Secretary of Com. v. Election Com’fs of City
259	259	of Boston, 2000 WL 1716249 (2000). Aggrieved candidates may then pursue a de novo review of
260	260	individual ballots in Superior Court should they choose to do so. See G.L. c. 56, § 59. Section
261	261	116 of Chapter 54 of the General Laws provides candidates with up to fifteen days following an
262	262	initial election or until the Governor and Governor’s Council reviews and determines the tally of
263	263	a recount.
264	264	9) A majority of the Special Committee therefore today re-affirms a bright line: candidates may
265	265	avail themselves of the courts to challenge election results only until the Governor and
266	266	Governor’s Council issue a certification of election and the Secretary of the Commonwealth
267	267	countersigns and transmits that Certificate of Election to the duly elected Representative-Elect.
268	268	Once that certification occurs, however, the exclusive jurisdiction over the election transfers to
269	269	the House of Representatives. 8
270	270
271	271	10) When, as is true in this matter, a candidate is provided the prescribed time and process to object
272	272	to ballots prior to certification, the House of Representatives is not a proper forum for calling
273	273	balls and strikes on challenges to the determination of the intent of individual voters. Allowing
274	274	such redress runs contrary to our system of government and its attendant commitment to timely
275	275	election results. Furthermore, a majority of the Special Committee finds that examining
276	276	individual ballots in this case unnecessarily opens the door for potential future mischief from
277	277	unscrupulous candidates seeking to impugn the integrity of the Commonwealth’s elections.
278	278	1
279	279
280	280	Where no judicial decision or other rule of law beyond our Constitutional authority is applicable,
281	281	we must give these public policy considerations great weight. See Opinion of the Justices, supra
282	282	at 912.
283	283	A majority of the Special Committee recommends that the House of Representatives declare
284	284	Representative-Elect Kristin Kassner the properly elected and qualified Representative for the Second
285	285	Essex District and adopt a resolution to that effect in the form attached hereto at Appendix K.
286	286
287	287
288	288
289	289	1
290	290	The Special Committee does not question Mr. Mirra’s integrity or character in presenting his case in good faith and
291	291	specifically notes and credits his testimony regarding his belief that this election was conducted fairly and openly. See
292	292	Appendix I at pp. 43-44. In the Matter of:
293	293	THE ELECTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE
294	294	IN THE GENERAL COURT OF
295	295	THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
296	296	REPRESENTING THE SECOND
297	297	ESSEX DISTRICT, BETWEEN
298	298	KRISTIN KASSNER and LEONARD MIRRA
299	299
300	300
301	301	Representative Bradley H. Jones, Jr., of North Reading, as the Minority member on the Special
302	302	Committee, hereby submits this Minority Report concerning the above captioned matter now pending
303	303	before the Special Committee.
304	304
305	305	1. The Minority generally does not dispute the factual and procedural background as laid out by the
306	306	Majority Report. The Minority nevertheless does have serious concerns about several aspects of the
307	307	Majority Report and its recommendations, which are outlined below.
308	308
309	309	2. The Minority agrees with the Majority Report analysis that the House has exclusive jurisdiction in
310	310	regard to the Second Essex District. The House becomes the sole arbiter at such point that a Certificate
311	311	of Election is issued. As the sole arbiter, "jurisdiction rests exclusively with the House of
312	312	Representatives to determine whether the Representative-Elect is entitled to claim the seat designated
313	313	in the Certificate of Election." The Committee was presented with evidence that is insufficient to make
314	314	such a determination without further examination.
315	315
316	316	3. The Majority argument becomes a circular one. While candidates retain the right to seek relief through
317	317	the courts following an election, the Majority notes the timeline for doing so “is finite.” The House
318	318	gains exclusive jurisdiction at the time the Certificate of Election is issued, even if the contesting
319	319	candidate’s appeal for judicial relief is still pending before the courts. The Majority seems to argue that
320	320	while exclusive jurisdiction is gained by the issuance of such certificate, a contesting candidate loses
321	321	the ability to assert any further legal rights or seek any remedies after the issuance of such certificate. If
322	322	the Majority Report is accepted, this Special Committee is self-limiting the authority that the House may take as the sole arbiter, and thereby rendering its jurisdiction meaningless in this case and in the
323	323	future. Furthermore, as the Majority notes, the certificate merely serves to "direct the attention of the
324	324	House to the question of whether the presenter is entitled to be declared a representative". It is
325	325	important to note further in that analysis that "Although the judiciary may, under § 59, order that a
326	326	certificate of election issue to a particular individual, that certificate is nothing more than evidence that
327	327	a candidate may present to the House in support of a claim of election". Wheatley v. Secretary of the
328	328	Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 849, 854 (2003). The bright line reaffirmed by the Majority is relative to
329	329	the Courts, not to the House. As Ms. Kassner's Counsel pointed out in the transcript, “So that
330	330	certification in -- in my mind, is a bright line that if you -- if you want to initiate litigation, you have to
331	331	initiate it before there's a certification. Otherwise, you have to deal with the House of
332	332	Representatives....". (Appendix J at p. 61.)
333	333
334	334	4. Mr. Mirra contends that two ballots in Ipswich that were originally called ballots for Mr. Mirra were
335	335	incorrectly overruled and counted as blanks in the recount. If these two ballots were counted
336	336	differently, they would materially change the outcome of the election. (Exhibit D at p. 51.) It appears
337	337	from the accounts of all parties that there was significant discussion over these two ballots and that it
338	338	was not immediately clear how the ballots should be correctly counted, which should raise questions to
339	339	this committee over the validity of the final determinations. The parties also assert differing accounts
340	340	of how the ballots appeared, and do so only from initial memory. (Id at 104.) There remains dispute on
341	341	these ballots and no resolution can be ascertained without the Committee's review of these and all other
342	342	contested ballots.
343	343
344	344	5. Additionally, Counsel for Ms. Kassner points out that "there were many, many things" that were
345	345	challenged. (Appendix J at p. 57.) Specifically, there is highlighted a challenged ballot that appears to
346	346	have been counted for Ms. Kassner but by Counsel's own analysis of the general laws, should not have
347	347	been. The ballot referenced had both circles filled in next to both candidates' names. "I think it's quite
348	348	clear in the statute Chapter 54, Section 106, if a voter marks more names than there are persons to be
349	349	elected on an office, his ballot shall not be counted for such office". (Id.)
350	350
351	351	6. Counsel for Ms. Kassner acknowledges “Mistakes happen.” (Id. at p. 70.) The Majority in their report
352	352	writes “…a review of the evidence presented to the Special Committee does raise concerns regarding human error and, if occurring on a larger scale, their potential impact on future elections.” The margin
353	353	in the pending matter is the slimmest that can be found in an election. Given the acknowledgments by
354	354	Counsel and the Majority that mistakes and human error have been identified, a review by the Special
355	355	Committee of all the challenged ballots is more than warranted, it is demanded by the oath of office
356	356	each of the Special Committee members took on January 4, 2023.
357	357
358	358	7. It is true, as the Majority Report states, that “the House of Representatives is not a proper forum for
359	359	calling balls and strikes” if we are talking about baseball. But, this is not America’s pastime, this is
360	360	America’s fundamental constitutional right and one that a free and fair democracy cannot survive
361	361	without. It is the duty of this body and its members to uphold this fundamental constitutional right.
362	362	Additionally, the Majority engages in gross speculation without any foundation “… that examining
363	363	individual ballots in this case unnecessarily opens the door for potential future mischief from
364	364	unscrupulous candidates seeking to impugn the integrity of the Commonwealth’s elections.” A failure
365	365	of this body to exercise its authority by refusing to examine individual ballots in this case, where it is
366	366	abundantly clear that serious doubt remains in the accuracy of the counting of multiple ballots, where
367	367	the will of the electorate cannot be ascertained by the evidence that has been presented, and where the
368	368	slimmest margin of election is present, impugns the integrity of the Commonwealth’s elections. It has
369	369	been long established that the House retains the right to examine ballots in question. In 1891, the
370	370	Attorney General issued an opinion that speaks directly to the House's authority to examine ballots
371	371	whereby he stated: "The House of Representatives, or its election committee, subject to the approval of
372	372	the House, has power to determine the evident intent of a voter from an inspection of the ballot, where
373	373	the strict letter of the law as to affixing of filling in the name or marking the ballot has not been
374	374	complied with; as by the Constitution (Part II), Chapter 1, Section 3, Article 10, the House of
375	375	Representatives 'shall be the judge of the returns, elections, and qualifications of its members;' which
376	376	provision is held to give the House absolute power over the subject." Opinion of the Attorney General
377	377	3, 8 (1891).
378	378
379	379	The Minority recommends that the Special Committee reconvene expeditiously to examine the ballots
380	380	in question to make a determination as to whether Ms. Kassner or Mr. Mirra has been properly elected
381	381	or the Second Essex District has failed to elect a representative.
382	382	Governor and Lieutenant Governor
383	383	Attorney General
384	384	Secretary of State
385	385	Treasurer
386	386	Auditor
387	387	Representative in Congress
388	388	Councillor
389	389	Senator in General Court
390	390	Representative in General Court
391	391	District Attorney
392	392	Sheriff
393	393	Statewide Ballot Questions
394	394	Public Policy Questions
395	395	Compiled by
396	396	William Francis Galvin
397	397	Secretary of the Commonwealth
398	398	Elections Division
399	399	Certified by the
400	400	Governor and Council
401	401	Return of Votes
402	402	For Massachusetts State Election
403	403	November 8, 2022 1
404	404	The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
405	405
406	406	EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
407	407
408	408	December 14, 2022
409	409
410	410	His Excellency the Governor and Council, having examined the amended and recounted
411	411	returns of votes for Representatives in Congress, State Officers, and ballot questions given in the
412	412	several cities and towns in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and Laws of the
413	413	Commonwealth on the eighth day of November last past, find that the following named persons
414	414	have received the number of votes set against their names.
415	415
416	416	________________________________________________________________________
417	417
418	418
419	419	GOVERNOR and LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
420	420
421	421	Diehl and Allen (Republican) have............................................................................ 859,343
422	422	Healey and Driscoll (Democratic) have ..................................................................... 1,584,403
423	423	and appear to be elected.
424	424	Reed and Everett (Libertarian) have .......................................................................... 39,244
425	425	All others .................................................................................................................... 2,806
426	426	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 25,665
427	427	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 2,511,461
428	428
429	429
430	430	ATTORNEY GENERAL
431	431
432	432	Andrea Joy Campbell, of Boston (Democratic) has ................................................. 1,539,624
433	433	and appears to be elected.
434	434	James R. McMahon, III, of Bourne (Republican) has ............................................... 908,608
435	435	All Others ................................................................................................................... 1,550
436	436	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 61,679
437	437	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 2,511,461
438	438
439	439
440	440	SECRETARY OF STATE
441	441
442	442	William Francis Galvin, of Boston (Democratic) has ............................................... 1,665,808
443	443	and appears to be elected.
444	444	Rayla Campbell, of Whitman (Republican) has ........................................................ 722,021
445	445	Juan Sanchez, of Holyoke (Green-Rainbow) has ...................................................... 71,717
446	446	All Others ................................................................................................................... 1,396
447	447	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 50,519
448	448	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 2,511,461
449	449	2
450	450	TREASURER and RECEIVER GENERAL
451	451
452	452	Deborah B. Goldberg, of Brookline (Democratic) has .............................................. 1,709,555
453	453	and appears to be elected.
454	454	Cristina Crawford, of Sherborn (Libertarian) ............................................................ 516,019
455	455	All Others ................................................................................................................... 9,994
456	456	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 275,893
457	457	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 2,511,461
458	458
459	459
460	460	AUDITOR
461	461
462	462	Anthony Amore, of Winchester (Republican) has ..................................................... 897,223
463	463	Diana DiZoglio, of Methuen (Democratic) has ......................................................... 1,310,773
464	464	and appears to be elected.
465	465	Gloria A. Caballero-Roca, of Holyoke (Green-Rainbow) has ................................... 68,646
466	466	Dominic Giannone, III, of Weymouth (Workers Party) has ...................................... 51,877
467	467	Daniel Riek, of Yarmouth (Libertarian) has .............................................................. 48,625
468	468	All Others ................................................................................................................... 1,648
469	469	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 132,669
470	470	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 2,511,461
471	471
472	472
473	473	REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
474	474
475	475
476	476	FIRST DISTRICT
477	477
478	478	Richard E. Neal, of Springfield (Democratic) has ..................................................... 157,635
479	479	and is duly elected.
480	480	Dean James Martilli, of West Springfield (Republican) has ..................................... 98,386
481	481
482	482	All Others ................................................................................................................... 378
483	483	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 7,252
484	484	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 263,651
485	485
486	486	SECOND DISTRICT
487	487
488	488	James P. McGovern, of Worcester (Democratic) has ................................................ 180,639
489	489	and is duly elected.
490	490	Jeffrey A. Sossa-Paquette, of Shrewsbury (Republican) has ..................................... 91,956
491	491	All Others ................................................................................................................... 276
492	492	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 7,200
493	493	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 280,071
494	494
495	495	3
496	496	THIRD DISTRICT
497	497
498	498	Lori Loureiro Trahan, of Westford (Democratic) has ............................................... 154,496
499	499	and is duly elected.
500	500	Dean A. Tran, of Fitchburg (Republican) has............................................................ 88,585
501	501	All Others ................................................................................................................... 220
502	502	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 8,088
503	503	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 251,389
504	504
505	505
506	506	FOURTH DISTRICT
507	507
508	508	Jake Auchincloss, of Newton (Democratic) has ........................................................ 201,882
509	509	and is duly elected.
510	510	All Others ................................................................................................................... 6,397
511	511	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 83,290
512	512	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 291,569
513	513
514	514
515	515	FIFTH DISTRICT
516	516
517	517	Katherine M. Clark, of Revere (Democratic) has ...................................................... 203,994
518	518	and is duly elected.
519	519	Caroline Colarusso, of Stoneham (Republican) has .................................................. 71,491
520	520	All Others ................................................................................................................... 186
521	521	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 9,210
522	522	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 284,881
523	523
524	524
525	525	SIXTH DISTRICT
526	526
527	527	Seth Moulton, of Salem (Democratic) has ................................................................. 198,119
528	528	and is duly elected.
529	529	Bob May, of Peabody (Republican) has .................................................................... 110,770
530	530	Mark T. Tashjian, of Georgetown (Libertarian) has .................................................. 5,995
531	531	All Others ................................................................................................................... 197
532	532	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 7,951
533	533	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 323,032
534	534
535	535
536	536
537	537
538	538
539	539
540	540	4
541	541	SEVENTH DISTRICT
542	542
543	543	Ayanna S. Pressley, of Boston (Democratic) has ...................................................... 151,825
544	544	and is duly elected.
545	545	Donnie Dionicio Palmer, Jr., of Boston (Republican) has ......................................... 27,129
546	546	All Others ................................................................................................................... 557
547	547	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 10,319
548	548	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 189,830
549	549
550	550
551	551	EIGHTH DISTRICT
552	552
553	553	Stephen F. Lynch, of Boston (Democratic) has ......................................................... 189,987
554	554	and is duly elected.
555	555	Robert G. Burke, of Milton (Republican) has ............................................................ 82,126
556	556	All Others ................................................................................................................... 451
557	557	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 12,019
558	558	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 284,583
559	559
560	560
561	561	NINTH DISTRICT
562	562
563	563	Bill Keating, of Bourne (Democratic) has ................................................................. 197,823
564	564	and is duly elected.
565	565	Jesse G. Brown, of Plymouth (Republican) has ........................................................ 136,347
566	566	All Others ................................................................................................................... 150
567	567	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 8,135
568	568	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 342,455
569	569
570	570	5
571	571	COUNCILLOR
572	572
573	573
574	574	FIRST DISTRICT
575	575
576	576	Joseph C. Ferreira, of Swansea (Democratic) has ..................................................... 232,118
577	577	and appears to be elected.
578	578	All Others ................................................................................................................... 6,177
579	579	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 109,738
580	580	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 348,033
581	581
582	582
583	583	SECOND DISTRICT
584	584
585	585	Robert L. Jubinville, of Milton (Democratic) has...................................................... 194,480
586	586	and appears to be elected.
587	587	Dashe M. Videira, of Franklin (Republican) has ....................................................... 112,941
588	588	All Others ................................................................................................................... 183
589	589	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 21,549
590	590	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 329,153
591	591
592	592
593	593	THIRD DISTRICT
594	594
595	595	Marilyn M. Petitto Devaney, of Watertown (Democratic) has .................................. 248,736
596	596	and appears to be elected.
597	597	All Others ................................................................................................................... 4,456
598	598	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 91,907
599	599	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 345,099
600	600
601	601
602	602	FOURTH DISTRICT
603	603
604	604	Christopher A. Iannella, Jr., of Boston (Democratic) has .......................................... 205,182
605	605	and appears to be elected.
606	606	Helene “Teddy” MacNeal, of Boston (Republican) has ............................................ 84,005
607	607	All Others ................................................................................................................... 418
608	608	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 21,438
609	609	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 311,043
610	610	6
611	611	FIFTH DISTRICT
612	612
613	613	Eileen R. Duff, of Gloucester (Democratic) has ........................................................ 175,894
614	614	and appears to be elected.
615	615	Michael C. Walsh, of Lynnfield (Republican) has .................................................... 119,175
616	616	All Others ................................................................................................................... 207
617	617	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 14,885
618	618	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 310,161
619	619
620	620
621	621	SIXTH DISTRICT
622	622
623	623	Terrence W. Kennedy, of Lynnfield (Democratic) has ............................................. 203,576
624	624	and appears to be elected.
625	625	All Others ................................................................................................................... 3,666
626	626	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 71,129
627	627	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 278,371
628	628
629	629
630	630	SEVENTH DISTRICT
631	631
632	632	Paul M. DePalo, of Worcester (Democratic) ............................................................. 163,456
633	633	and appears to be elected.
634	634	Gary Galonek, of Sturbridge (Republican) ................................................................ 123,084
635	635	All Others ................................................................................................................... 157
636	636	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 13,825
637	637	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 300,522
638	638
639	639
640	640	EIGHTH DISTRICT
641	641
642	642	John M. Comerford, of Palmer (Republican) has ...................................................... 104,839
643	643	Tara J. Jacobs, of North Adams (Democratic) has .................................................... 170,120
644	644	and appears to be elected.
645	645	All Others ................................................................................................................... 235
646	646	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 13,885
647	647	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 289,079
648	648	7
649	649	SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT
650	650
651	651
652	652	BERKSHIRE, HAMPDEN, FRANKLIN & HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT
653	653
654	654	Paul W. Mark, of Becket (Democratic) has ............................................................... 47,989
655	655	and appears to be elected.
656	656	Brendan M. Phair, of Pittsfield (Unenrolled) has ...................................................... 14,806
657	657	All Others ................................................................................................................... 139
658	658	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 6,306
659	659	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 69,240
660	660
661	661
662	662	BRISTOL & NORFOLK DISTRICT
663	663
664	664	Paul R. Feeney, of Foxborough (Democratic) has ..................................................... 40,353
665	665	and appears to be elected.
666	666	Michael Chaisson, of Foxborough (Republican) ....................................................... 26,221
667	667	Laura L. Saylor, of Mansfield (Workers Party) ......................................................... 2,168
668	668	All Others ................................................................................................................... 17
669	669	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,733
670	670	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 71,492
671	671
672	672
673	673	FIRST BRISTOL & PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
674	674
675	675	Michael J. Rodrigues, of Westport (Democratic) has ................................................ 29,420
676	676	and appears to be elected.
677	677	Russell T. Protentis, of Lakeville (Republican) has .................................................. 21,600
678	678	All Others ................................................................................................................... 34
679	679	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,920
680	680	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 52,974
681	681
682	682
683	683	SECOND BRISTOL & PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
684	684
685	685	Mark C. Montigny, of New Bedford (Democratic) has ............................................. 35,193
686	686	and appears to be elected.
687	687	All Others ................................................................................................................... 1,018
688	688	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 12,524
689	689	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 48,735
690	690
691	691
692	692
693	693	8
694	694	THIRD BRISTOL & PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
695	695
696	696	Marc R. Pacheco, of Taunton (Democratic) has ........................................................ 35,556
697	697	and appears to be elected.
698	698	Maria S. Collins, of Taunton (Republican) has ......................................................... 29,937
699	699	All Others ................................................................................................................... 32
700	700	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,105
701	701	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 67,630
702	702
703	703
704	704	CAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICT
705	705
706	706	Julian Andre Cyr, of Truro (Democratic) has ............................................................ 54,714
707	707	and appears to be elected.
708	708	Christopher Robert Lauzon, of Barnstable (Republican) has .................................... 31,176
709	709	All Others ................................................................................................................... 32
710	710	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,722
711	711	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 87,644
712	712
713	713
714	714	FIRST ESSEX DISTRICT
715	715
716	716	Pavel Payano, of Lawrence (Democratic) has ........................................................... 21,591
717	717	and appears to be elected.
718	718	All Others ................................................................................................................... 1,256
719	719	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 8,106
720	720	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 30,953
721	721
722	722
723	723	SECOND ESSEX DISTRICT
724	724
725	725	Joan B. Lovely, of Salem (Democratic) has .............................................................. 44,277
726	726	and appears to be elected.
727	727	Damian M. Anketell, of Peabody (Republican) has .................................................. 21,108
728	728	All Others ................................................................................................................... 50
729	729	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,022
730	730	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 67,457
731	731
732	732
733	733	THIRD ESSEX DISTRICT
734	734
735	735	Brendan P. Crighton, of Lynn (Democratic) has ....................................................... 34,620
736	736	Annalisa Sulustri, of Swampscott (Independent) has ................................................ 13,910
737	737	All Others ................................................................................................................... 205
738	738	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 7,443
739	739	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 56,178 9
740	740	FIRST ESSEX & MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
741	741
742	742	Bruce E. Tarr, of Gloucester (Republican) has .......................................................... 58,838
743	743	and appears to be elected.
744	744	Terence William Cudney, of Gloucester (Independent) has ...................................... 23,408
745	745	All Others ................................................................................................................... 171
746	746	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 7,075
747	747	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 89,492
748	748
749	749
750	750	SECOND ESSEX & MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
751	751
752	752	Barry R. Finegold, of Andover (Democratic) has...................................................... 42,932
753	753	and appears to be elected.
754	754	Salvatore Paul DeFranco, of Haverhill (Republican) has .......................................... 31,926
755	755	All Others ................................................................................................................... 42
756	756	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,727
757	757	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 76,627
758	758
759	759
760	760	HAMPDEN DISTRICT
761	761
762	762	Adam Gomez, of Springfield (Democratic) has ........................................................ 23,665
763	763	and appears to be elected.
764	764	All Others ................................................................................................................... 845
765	765	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,790
766	766	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 30,300
767	767
768	768
769	769	HAMPDEN & HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT
770	770
771	771	John C. Velis, of Westfield (Democratic) has ........................................................... 37,130
772	772	and appears to be elected.
773	773	Cecilia P. Calabrese, of Agawam (Republican) has .................................................. 19,388
774	774	All Others ................................................................................................................... 77
775	775	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,244
776	776	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 57,839
777	777
778	778
779	779
780	780
781	781
782	782
783	783
784	784	10
785	785	HAMPDEN, HAMPSHIRE & WORCESTER DISTRICT
786	786
787	787	William E. Johnson, of Granby (Republican) has ..................................................... 29,027
788	788	Jacob R. Oliveira, of Ludlow (Democratic) has ........................................................ 37,410
789	789	and appears to be elected.
790	790	All Others ................................................................................................................... 31
791	791	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,681
792	792	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 68,149
793	793
794	794
795	795	HAMPSHIRE, FRANKLIN & WORCESTER DISTRICT
796	796
797	797	Jo Comerford, of Northampton (Democratic) has ..................................................... 51,232
798	798	and appears to be elected.
799	799	All Others ................................................................................................................... 1,280
800	800	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 11,039
801	801	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 63,551
802	802
803	803
804	804	FIRST MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
805	805
806	806	Edward J. Kennedy, Jr., of Lowell (Democratic) has ................................................ 32,003
807	807	and appears to be elected.
808	808	All Others ................................................................................................................... 847
809	809	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 12,782
810	810	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 45,632
811	811
812	812
813	813	SECOND MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
814	814
815	815	Patricia D. Jehlen, of Somerville (Democratic) has ................................................... 53,866
816	816	and appears to be elected.
817	817	All Others ................................................................................................................... 439
818	818	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 12,403
819	819	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 66,708
820	820
821	821
822	822	THIRD MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
823	823
824	824	Michael J. Barrett, of Lexington (Democratic) has ................................................... 50,728
825	825	and appears to be elected.
826	826	All Others ................................................................................................................... 672
827	827	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 17,403
828	828	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 68,803
829	829
830	830	11
831	831	FOURTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
832	832
833	833	Cindy F. Friedman, of Arlington (Democratic) has ................................................... 54,112
834	834	and appears to be elected.
835	835	All Others ................................................................................................................... 1,107
836	836	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 21,232
837	837	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 76,451
838	838
839	839
840	840	FIFTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
841	841
842	842	Jason M. Lewis, of Winchester (Democratic) has ..................................................... 42,130
843	843	and appears to be elected.
844	844	Edward F. Dombroski, Jr., of Wakefield (Republican) has ....................................... 24,104
845	845	All Others ................................................................................................................... 63
846	846	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,625
847	847	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 68,922
848	848
849	849
850	850	MIDDLESEX & NORFOLK DISTRICT
851	851
852	852	Karen E. Spilka, of Ashland (Democratic) has .......................................................... 52,484
853	853	and appears to be elected.
854	854	All Others ................................................................................................................... 952
855	855	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 14,075
856	856	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 67,511
857	857
858	858
859	859	MIDDLESEX & SUFFOLK DISTRICT
860	860
861	861	Sal N. DiDomenico, of Everett (Democratic) has ..................................................... 33,355
862	862	and appears to be elected.
863	863	All Other .................................................................................................................... 395
864	864	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 7,831
865	865	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 41,581
866	866
867	867
868	868	MIDDLESEX & WORCESTER DISTRICT
869	869
870	870	James B. Eldridge, of Acton (Democratic) has .......................................................... 51,574
871	871	and appears to be elected.
872	872	Anthony Christakis, of Wayland (Republican) has ................................................... 21,819
873	873	All Others ................................................................................................................... 44
874	874	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,528
875	875	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 75,965 12
876	876	NORFOLK & MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
877	877
878	878	Cynthia Stone Creem, of Newton (Democratic) has ................................................. 55,022
879	879	and appears to be elected.
880	880	All Others ................................................................................................................... 713
881	881	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 15,213
882	882	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 70,948
883	883
884	884
885	885	NORFOLK & PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
886	886
887	887	John F. Keenan, of Quincy (Democratic) has ............................................................ 36,063
888	888	and appears to be elected.
889	889	Gary M. Innes, of Hanover (Republican) has ............................................................ 20,586
890	890	All Others ................................................................................................................... 38
891	891	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,248
892	892	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 58,935
893	893
894	894
895	895	NORFOLK, PLYMOUTH & BRISTOL DISTRICT
896	896
897	897	Walter F. Timilty, of Milton (Democratic) has .......................................................... 40,311
898	898	and appears to be elected.
899	899	Brian R. Muello, of Braintree (Republican) has ........................................................ 20,648
900	900	All Others ................................................................................................................... 86
901	901	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,996
902	902	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 64,041
903	903
904	904
905	905	NORFOLK & SUFFOLK DISTRICT
906	906
907	907	Michael F. Rush, of Boston (Democratic) has ........................................................... 54,915
908	908	and appears to be elected.
909	909	All Others ................................................................................................................... 1,043
910	910	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 19,742
911	911	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 75,700
912	912
913	913
914	914	NORFOLK, WORCESTER & MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
915	915
916	916	Rebecca L. Rausch, of Needham (Democratic) has .................................................. 41,893
917	917	and appears to be elected.
918	918	Shawn C. Dooley, of Wrentham (Republican) has .................................................... 34,452
919	919	All Others ................................................................................................................... 53
920	920	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,950
921	921	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 78,348 13
922	922	PLYMOUTH & BARNSTABLE DISTRICT
923	923
924	924	Susan Lynn Moran, of Falmouth (Democratic) has................................................... 49,686
925	925	and appears to be elected.
926	926	Kari MacRae, of Bourne (Republican) has ................................................................ 38,493
927	927	All Others ................................................................................................................... 39
928	928	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,832
929	929	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 91,050
930	930
931	931
932	932	FIRST PLYMOUTH & NORFOLK DISTRICT
933	933
934	934	Patrick Michael O’Connor, of Weymouth (Republican) has ..................................... 48,668
935	935	and appears to be elected.
936	936	Robert William Stephens, Jr., of Hanson (Democratic) has ...................................... 31,609
937	937	All Others ................................................................................................................... 42
938	938	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,952
939	939	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 83,271
940	940
941	941
942	942	SECOND PLYMOUTH & NORFOLK DISTRICT
943	943
944	944	Michael D. Brady, of Brockton (Democratic) has ..................................................... 29,297
945	945	and appears to be elected.
946	946	Jim Gordon, of Hanson (Republican) has .................................................................. 16,693
947	947	All Others ................................................................................................................... 38
948	948	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,733
949	949	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 47,761
950	950
951	951
952	952	FIRST SUFFOLK DISTRICT
953	953
954	954	Nicholas P. Collins, of Boston (Democratic) has ...................................................... 41,069
955	955	and appears to be elected.
956	956	All Others ................................................................................................................... 929
957	957	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 10,482
958	958	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 52,480
959	959
960	960
961	961
962	962
963	963
964	964
965	965
966	966	14
967	967	SECOND SUFFOLK DISTRICT
968	968
969	969	Liz Miranda, of Boston (Democratic) has ................................................................. 35,207
970	970	and appears to be elected.
971	971	All Others ................................................................................................................... 439
972	972	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,011
973	973	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 40,657
974	974
975	975
976	976	THIRD SUFFOLK DISTRICT
977	977
978	978	Lydia Marie Edwards, of Boston (Democratic) has .................................................. 32,396
979	979	and appears to be elected.
980	980	All Others ................................................................................................................... 1,006
981	981	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 11,580
982	982	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 44,982
983	983
984	984
985	985	SUFFOLK & MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
986	986
987	987	William N. Brownsberger, of Belmont (Democratic) has ......................................... 42,713
988	988	and appears to be elected.
989	989	All Others ................................................................................................................... 437
990	990	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 9,782
991	991	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 52,932
992	992
993	993
994	994	FIRST WORCESTER DISTRICT
995	995
996	996	Robyn K. Kennedy, of Worcester (Democratic) has ................................................. 30,138
997	997	and appears to be elected.
998	998	Lisa K. Mair, of Berlin (Unenrolled) has ................................................................... 10,805
999	999	All Others ................................................................................................................... 456
1000	1000	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,318
1001	1001	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 44,717
1002	1002
1003	1003
1004	1004	SECOND WORCESTER DISTRICT
1005	1005
1006	1006	Michael O. Moore, of Millbury (Democratic) has ..................................................... 40,946
1007	1007	and appears to be elected.
1008	1008	All Others ................................................................................................................... 793
1009	1009	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 12,641
1010	1010	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 54,380
1011	1011
1012	1012	15
1013	1013	WORCESTER & HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1014	1014
1015	1015	Ryan C. Fattman, of Sutton (Republican) has ........................................................... 53,456
1016	1016	and appears to be elected.
1017	1017	All Others ................................................................................................................... 833
1018	1018	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 17,109
1019	1019	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 71,398
1020	1020
1021	1021	WORCESTER & HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT
1022	1022
1023	1023	Anne M. Gobi, of Spencer (Democratic) has ............................................................ 35,409
1024	1024	and appears to be elected.
1025	1025	James Anthony Amorello, of Holden (Republican) has ............................................ 29,734
1026	1026	All Others ................................................................................................................... 15
1027	1027	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,580
1028	1028	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 66,738
1029	1029
1030	1030	WORCESTER & MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1031	1031
1032	1032	John J. Cronin, of Lunenburg (Democratic) has ........................................................ 36,784
1033	1033	and appears to be elected.
1034	1034	Kenneth B. Hoyt, of Westford (Republican) has ....................................................... 24,238
1035	1035	All Others ................................................................................................................... 35
1036	1036	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,232
1037	1037	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 63,289
1038	1038
1039	1039
1040	1040
1041	1041	REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT
1042	1042
1043	1043
1044	1044	FIRST BARNSTABLE DISTRICT
1045	1045
1046	1046	Christopher Richard Flanagan, of Dennis (Democratic) has ..................................... 12,454
1047	1047	and appears to be elected.
1048	1048	Tracy A. Post, of Yarmouth (Republican) has ........................................................... 10,389
1049	1049	Abraham Kasparian, Jr., of Yarmouth (We The People) has .................................... 447
1050	1050	All Others ................................................................................................................... 17
1051	1051	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 457
1052	1052	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 23,764
1053	1053
1054	1054
1055	1055
1056	1056
1057	1057	16
1058	1058	SECOND BARNSTABLE DISTRICT
1059	1059
1060	1060	Kip A. Diggs, of Barnstable (Democratic) has .......................................................... 11,664
1061	1061	and appears to be elected.
1062	1062	William Buffington Peters, of Barnstable (Republican) has ..................................... 7,098
1063	1063	All Others ................................................................................................................... 18
1064	1064	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 363
1065	1065	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,143
1066	1066
1067	1067
1068	1068	THIRD BARNSTABLE DISTRICT
1069	1069
1070	1070	David T. Vieira, of Falmouth (Republican) has ........................................................ 12,715
1071	1071	and appears to be elected.
1072	1072	Kathleen Fox Alfano, of Bourne (Democratic) has ................................................... 10,227
1073	1073	All Others ................................................................................................................... 7
1074	1074	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 735
1075	1075	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 23,684
1076	1076
1077	1077
1078	1078	FOURTH BARNSTABLE DISTRICT
1079	1079
1080	1080	Sarah K. Peake, of Provincetown (Democratic) has .................................................. 18,786
1081	1081	and appears to be elected.
1082	1082	All Others ................................................................................................................... 240
1083	1083	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,706
1084	1084	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 24,732
1085	1085
1086	1086
1087	1087	FIFTH BARNSTABLE DISTRICT
1088	1088
1089	1089	Steven G. Xiarhos, of Barnstable (Republican) has .................................................. 15,324
1090	1090	and appears to be elected.
1091	1091	All Others ................................................................................................................... 300
1092	1092	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,704
1093	1093	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 21,328
1094	1094
1095	1095
1096	1096
1097	1097
1098	1098
1099	1099
1100	1100
1101	1101
1102	1102	17
1103	1103	BARNSTABLE, DUKES & NANTUCKET DISTRICT
1104	1104
1105	1105	Dylan A. Fernandes, of Falmouth (Democratic) has ................................................. 15,858
1106	1106	and appears to be elected.
1107	1107	All Others ................................................................................................................... 227
1108	1108	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,359
1109	1109	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,444
1110	1110
1111	1111
1112	1112	FIRST BERKSHIRE DISTRICT
1113	1113
1114	1114	John Barrett, III, of North Adams (Democratic) has ................................................. 12,787
1115	1115	and appears to be elected.
1116	1116	All Others ................................................................................................................... 167
1117	1117	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,817
1118	1118	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 15,771
1119	1119
1120	1120
1121	1121	SECOND BERKSHIRE DISTRICT
1122	1122
1123	1123	Tricia Farley-Bouvier, of Pittsfield (Democratic) has ............................................... 10,883
1124	1124	and appears to be elected.
1125	1125	All Others ................................................................................................................... 74
1126	1126	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,277
1127	1127	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 14,234
1128	1128
1129	1129	THIRD BERKSHIRE DISTRICT
1130	1130
1131	1131	William “Smitty” Pignatelli, of Lenox (Democratic) has .......................................... 16,340
1132	1132	and appears to be elected.
1133	1133	Michael Silvio Lavery, of Becket (Green-Rainbow Party) has ................................. 1,698
1134	1134	All Others ................................................................................................................... 109
1135	1135	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,490
1136	1136	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,637
1137	1137
1138	1138
1139	1139	FIRST BRISTOL DISTRICT
1140	1140
1141	1141	Fred “Jay” Barrows, of Mansfield (Republican) has ................................................. 9,680
1142	1142	and appears to be elected.
1143	1143	Brendan A. Roche, of Mansfield (Democratic) ......................................................... 7,135
1144	1144	All Others ................................................................................................................... 9
1145	1145	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 669
1146	1146	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,493
1147	1147
1148	1148	18
1149	1149	SECOND BRISTOL DISTRICT
1150	1150
1151	1151	James K. Hawkins, of Attleboro (Democratic) has ................................................... 8,468
1152	1152	and appears to be elected.
1153	1153	Steven Joseph Escobar, of Attleboro (Republican) has ............................................. 5,516
1154	1154	All Others ................................................................................................................... 3
1155	1155	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 368
1156	1156	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 14,355
1157	1157
1158	1158
1159	1159	THIRD BRISTOL DISTRICT
1160	1160
1161	1161	Carol A. Doherty, of Taunton (Democratic) has ....................................................... 8,011
1162	1162	and appears to be elected.
1163	1163	Christopher P. Coute, of Taunton (Republican) has .................................................. 6,036
1164	1164	All Others ................................................................................................................... 4
1165	1165	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 437
1166	1166	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 14,488
1167	1167
1168	1168
1169	1169	FOURTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
1170	1170
1171	1171	Steven S. Howitt, of Seekonk (Republican) has ........................................................ 13,380
1172	1172	and appears to be elected.
1173	1173	All Others ................................................................................................................... 244
1174	1174	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,149
1175	1175	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,773
1176	1176
1177	1177
1178	1178	FIFTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
1179	1179
1180	1180	Patricia A. Haddad, of Somerset (Democratic) has ................................................... 8,951
1181	1181	and appears to be elected.
1182	1182	Justin Thurber, of Somerset (Republican) has ........................................................... 7,514
1183	1183	All Others ................................................................................................................... 5
1184	1184	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 393
1185	1185	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,863
1186	1186
1187	1187
1188	1188	SIXTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
1189	1189
1190	1190	Carole A. Fiola, of Fall River (Democratic) has ........................................................ 7,321
1191	1191	and appears to be elected.
1192	1192	All Others ................................................................................................................... 256
1193	1193	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,949
1194	1194	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 10,526 19
1195	1195	SEVENTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
1196	1196
1197	1197	Alan Silvia, of Fall River (Democratic) has .............................................................. 4,886
1198	1198	and appears to be elected.
1199	1199	All Others ................................................................................................................... 179
1200	1200	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,561
1201	1201	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 6,626
1202	1202
1203	1203
1204	1204	EIGHTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
1205	1205
1206	1206	Paul A. Schmid, III, of Westport (Democratic) has ................................................... 8,437
1207	1207	and appears to be elected.
1208	1208	Evan Gendreau, of Westport (Republican) has .......................................................... 7,326
1209	1209	All Others ................................................................................................................... 12
1210	1210	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 418
1211	1211	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,193
1212	1212
1213	1213
1214	1214	NINTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
1215	1215
1216	1216	Christopher Markey, of Dartmouth (Democratic) has ............................................... 10,977
1217	1217	and appears to be elected.
1218	1218	All Others ................................................................................................................... 294
1219	1219	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,410
1220	1220	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 15,681
1221	1221
1222	1222
1223	1223	TENTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
1224	1224
1225	1225	William M. Straus, of Mattapoisett (Democratic) has ............................................... 10,648
1226	1226	and appears to be elected.
1227	1227	Jeffrey Gerald Swift, of Mattapoisett (Republican) has ............................................ 8,280
1228	1228
1229	1229	All Others ................................................................................................................... 7
1230	1230	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 497
1231	1231	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,432
1232	1232
1233	1233
1234	1234	ELEVENTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
1235	1235
1236	1236	Christopher Hendricks, of New Bedford (Democratic) has ....................................... 4,906
1237	1237	and appears to be elected.
1238	1238	All Others ................................................................................................................... 161
1239	1239	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,408
1240	1240	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 6,475
1241	1241	20
1242	1242	TWELFTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
1243	1243
1244	1244	Norman J. Orrall, of Lakeville (Republican) has ....................................................... 12,370
1245	1245	and appears to be elected.
1246	1246	All Others ................................................................................................................... 186
1247	1247	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,677
1248	1248	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,233
1249	1249
1250	1250
1251	1251	THIRTEENTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
1252	1252
1253	1253	Antonio F.D. Cabral, of New Bedford (Democratic) has .......................................... 6,977
1254	1254	and appears to be elected.
1255	1255	All Others ................................................................................................................... 225
1256	1256	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,144
1257	1257	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 9,346
1258	1258
1259	1259
1260	1260	FOURTEENTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
1261	1261
1262	1262	Adam Scanlon, of North Attleborough (Democratic) has ......................................... 11,212
1263	1263	and appears to be elected.
1264	1264	All Others ................................................................................................................... 169
1265	1265	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,823
1266	1266	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,204
1267	1267
1268	1268
1269	1269	FIRST ESSEX DISTRICT
1270	1270
1271	1271	CJ Fitzwater, of Salisbury (Republican) has .............................................................. 8,657
1272	1272	Dawne F. Shand, of Newburyport (Democratic) has ................................................. 12,790
1273	1273	and appears to be elected.
1274	1274	All Others ................................................................................................................... 18
1275	1275	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 798
1276	1276	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 22,263
1277	1277
1278	1278
1279	1279	SECOND ESSEX DISTRICT
1280	1280	(AMENDED PER RECOUNT )
1281	1281
1282	1282	Leonard Mirra, of Georgetown (Republican) has ...................................................... 11,762
1283	1283	Kristin E. Kassner, of Hamilton (Democratic) has .................................................... 11,763
1284	1284	and appears to be elected.
1285	1285	All Others ................................................................................................................... 5
1286	1286	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 638
1287	1287	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 24,168
1288	1288	21
1289	1289	THIRD ESSEX DISTRICT
1290	1290
1291	1291	Andres X. Vargas, of Haverhill (Democratic) has ..................................................... 9,176
1292	1292	and appears to be elected.
1293	1293	All Others ................................................................................................................... 385
1294	1294	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,369
1295	1295	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 12,930
1296	1296
1297	1297
1298	1298	FOURTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1299	1299
1300	1300	Estela A. Reyes, of Lawrence (Democratic) has ....................................................... 4,884
1301	1301	and appears to be elected.
1302	1302	All Others ................................................................................................................... 238
1303	1303	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,755
1304	1304	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 6,877
1305	1305
1306	1306
1307	1307	FIFTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1308	1308
1309	1309	Ann-Margaret Ferrante, of Gloucester (Democratic) has .......................................... 14,971
1310	1310	and appears to be elected.
1311	1311	Ashley Sullivan, of Gloucester (Republican) has ...................................................... 6,683
1312	1312	All Others ................................................................................................................... 34
1313	1313	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 756
1314	1314	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 22,444
1315	1315
1316	1316
1317	1317	SIXTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1318	1318
1319	1319	Jerald A. Parisella, of Beverly (Democratic) has ....................................................... 14,666
1320	1320	and appears to be elected.
1321	1321	All Others ................................................................................................................... 183
1322	1322	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,764
1323	1323	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,613
1324	1324
1325	1325
1326	1326	SEVENTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1327	1327
1328	1328	Manny Cruz, of Salem (Democratic) has .................................................................. 13,608
1329	1329	and appears to be elected.
1330	1330	All Others ................................................................................................................... 46
1331	1331	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,048
1332	1332	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,702
1333	1333	22
1334	1334	EIGHTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1335	1335
1336	1336	Jennifer WB Armini, of Marblehead (Democratic) has ............................................. 14,156
1337	1337	and appears to be elected.
1338	1338	All Others ................................................................................................................... 215
1339	1339	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,956
1340	1340	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,327
1341	1341
1342	1342
1343	1343	NINTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1344	1344
1345	1345	Donald H. Wong, of Saugus (Republican) has .......................................................... 13,664
1346	1346	and appears to be elected
1347	1347	All Others ................................................................................................................... 133
1348	1348	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,604
1349	1349	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,401
1350	1350
1351	1351
1352	1352	TENTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1353	1353
1354	1354	Daniel Cahill, of Lynn (Democratic) has ................................................................... 6,042
1355	1355	and appears to be elected.
1356	1356	All Others ................................................................................................................... 217
1357	1357	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,870
1358	1358	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 8,129
1359	1359
1360	1360
1361	1361	ELEVENTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1362	1362
1363	1363	Peter L. Capano, of Lynn (Democratic) has .............................................................. 7,135
1364	1364	and appears to be elected.
1365	1365	All Others ................................................................................................................... 201
1366	1366	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,999
1367	1367	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 9,335
1368	1368
1369	1369
1370	1370	TWELFTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1371	1371
1372	1372	Thomas P. Walsh, of Peabody (Democratic) has ...................................................... 12,021
1373	1373	and appears to be elected.
1374	1374	All Others ................................................................................................................... 335
1375	1375	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,729
1376	1376	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,085
1377	1377
1378	1378	23
1379	1379
1380	1380	THIRTEENTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1381	1381
1382	1382	Sally P. Kerans, of Danvers (Democratic) has .......................................................... 13,923
1383	1383	and appears to be elected.
1384	1384	Michael D. Bean (Write-in), of Danvers has ............................................................. 571
1385	1385	All Others ................................................................................................................... 307
1386	1386	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 6,009
1387	1387	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,810
1388	1388
1389	1389
1390	1390	FOURTEENTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1391	1391
1392	1392	Joseph G. Finn, of North Andover (Republican) has................................................. 9,161
1393	1393	Adrianne Ramos, of North Andover (Democratic) has ............................................. 10,879
1394	1394	and appears to be elected
1395	1395	All Others ................................................................................................................... 12
1396	1396	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 544
1397	1397	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,596
1398	1398
1399	1399
1400	1400	FIFTEENTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1401	1401
1402	1402	Ryan M. Hamilton, of Methuen (Democratic) has .................................................... 10,822
1403	1403	and appears to be elected.
1404	1404	All Others ................................................................................................................... 543
1405	1405	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,566
1406	1406	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,931
1407	1407
1408	1408
1409	1409	SIXTEENTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1410	1410
1411	1411	Francisco E. Paulino, of Methuen (Democratic) has ................................................. 5,363
1412	1412	and appears to be elected.
1413	1413	All Others ................................................................................................................... 224
1414	1414	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,808
1415	1415	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 7,395
1416	1416
1417	1417
1418	1418	SEVENTEENTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1419	1419
1420	1420	Frank A. Moran, of Lawrence (Democratic) has ....................................................... 6,031
1421	1421	and appears to be elected.
1422	1422	All Others ................................................................................................................... 145
1423	1423	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,792
1424	1424	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 7,968
1425	1425	24
1426	1426	EIGHTEENTH ESSEX DISTRICT
1427	1427
1428	1428	Tram T. Nguyen, of Andover (Democratic) has ........................................................ 11,812
1429	1429	and appears to be elected.
1430	1430	Jeffrey Peter Dufour., of Andover (Republican) has ................................................. 7,738
1431	1431	All Others ................................................................................................................... 17
1432	1432	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 400
1433	1433	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,967
1434	1434
1435	1435
1436	1436	FIRST FRANKLIN DISTRICT
1437	1437
1438	1438	Natalie M. Blais, of Deerfield (Democratic) has ....................................................... 16,086
1439	1439	and appears to be elected.
1440	1440	All Others ................................................................................................................... 158
1441	1441	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,460
1442	1442	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,704
1443	1443
1444	1444
1445	1445	SECOND FRANKLIN DISTRICT
1446	1446
1447	1447	Susannah M. Whipps, of Athol (Independent) has .................................................... 9,797
1448	1448	and appears to be elected.
1449	1449	Jeffrey L. Raymond, of Athol (Republican) has ........................................................ 4,892
1450	1450	Kevin Patrick McKeown, of Gill (Unenrolled) has ................................................... 736
1451	1451	All Others ................................................................................................................... 24
1452	1452	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 837
1453	1453	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,286
1454	1454
1455	1455
1456	1456	FIRST HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1457	1457
1458	1458	Todd M. Smola, of Warren (Republican) has ............................................................ 13,297
1459	1459	and appears to be elected.
1460	1460	All Others ................................................................................................................... 218
1461	1461	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,178
1462	1462	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,693
1463	1463
1464	1464
1465	1465	SECOND HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1466	1466
1467	1467	Brian M. Ashe, of Longmeadow (Democratic) has ................................................... 13,670
1468	1468	and appears to be elected.
1469	1469	All Others ................................................................................................................... 349
1470	1470	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,748
1471	1471	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,767 25
1472	1472	THIRD HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1473	1473
1474	1474	Nicholas A. Boldyga, of Southwick (Republican) has .............................................. 11,093
1475	1475	and appears to be elected.
1476	1476	Anthony J. Russo, of Agawam (Democratic) has ...................................................... 7,397
1477	1477	All Others .................................................................................................................. 6
1478	1478	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 360
1479	1479	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,856
1480	1480
1481	1481
1482	1482	FOURTH HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1483	1483
1484	1484	Kelly W. Pease, of Westfield (Republican) has ......................................................... 12,256
1485	1485	and appears to be elected.
1486	1486	All Others ................................................................................................................... 225
1487	1487	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,868
1488	1488	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,349
1489	1489
1490	1490
1491	1491	FIFTH HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1492	1492
1493	1493	Patricia A. Duffy, of Holyoke (Democratic) has ....................................................... 7,990
1494	1494	and appears to be elected.
1495	1495	All Others ................................................................................................................... 219
1496	1496	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,302
1497	1497	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 10,511
1498	1498
1499	1499
1500	1500	SIXTH HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1501	1501
1502	1502	Michael J. Finn, of West Springfield (Democratic) has ............................................ 9,055
1503	1503	and appears to be elected.
1504	1504	All Others ................................................................................................................... 180
1505	1505	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,602
1506	1506	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 12,837
1507	1507
1508	1508
1509	1509	SEVENTH HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1510	1510
1511	1511	James Chip Harrington, of Ludlow (Republican) has ............................................... 8,573
1512	1512	Aaron L. Saunders, of Belchertown (Democratic) has .............................................. 9,577
1513	1513	and appears to be elected.
1514	1514	All Others ................................................................................................................... 14
1515	1515	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 454
1516	1516	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,618
1517	1517	26
1518	1518	EIGHTH HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1519	1519
1520	1520	Shirley B. Arriaga, of Chicopee (Democratic) .......................................................... 8,129
1521	1521	and appears to be elected.
1522	1522	Sean Goonan, of Chicopee (Independent) ................................................................. 4,420
1523	1523	All Others ................................................................................................................... 65
1524	1524	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 775
1525	1525	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 13,389
1526	1526
1527	1527
1528	1528	NINTH HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1529	1529
1530	1530	Orlando Ramos, of Springfield (Democratic) has ..................................................... 5,913
1531	1531	and appears to be elected.
1532	1532	All Others ................................................................................................................... 216
1533	1533	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,442
1534	1534	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 7,571
1535	1535
1536	1536
1537	1537	TENTH HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1538	1538
1539	1539	Carlos Gonzalez, of Springfield (Democratic) has .................................................... 4,069
1540	1540	and appears to be elected.
1541	1541	All Others ................................................................................................................... 105
1542	1542	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 740
1543	1543	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 4,914
1544	1544
1545	1545
1546	1546	ELEVENTH HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1547	1547
1548	1548	Bud L. Williams, of Springfield (Democratic) has .................................................... 6,165
1549	1549	and appears to be elected.
1550	1550	All Others ................................................................................................................... 245
1551	1551	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,358
1552	1552	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 7,768
1553	1553
1554	1554
1555	1555	TWELFTH HAMPDEN DISTRICT
1556	1556
1557	1557	Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr., of Springfield (Democratic) has ........................................... 12,882
1558	1558	and appears to be elected.
1559	1559	All Others ................................................................................................................... 340
1560	1560	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,763
1561	1561	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,985
1562	1562	27
1563	1563	FIRST HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT
1564	1564
1565	1565	Lindsay N. Sabadosa, of Northampton (Democratic) has ......................................... 17,592
1566	1566	and appears to be elected.
1567	1567	All Others ................................................................................................................... 68
1568	1568	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,164
1569	1569	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,824
1570	1570
1571	1571
1572	1572	SECOND HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT
1573	1573
1574	1574	Daniel R. Carey, of Easthampton (Democratic) has .................................................. 15,492
1575	1575	and appears to be elected.
1576	1576	All Others ................................................................................................................... 209
1577	1577	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,703
1578	1578	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,404
1579	1579
1580	1580
1581	1581	THIRD HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT
1582	1582
1583	1583	Mindy Domb, of Amherst (Democratic) has ............................................................. 8,333
1584	1584	and appears to be elected.
1585	1585	All Others ................................................................................................................... 68
1586	1586	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,269
1587	1587	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 9,670
1588	1588
1589	1589
1590	1590	FIRST MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1591	1591	(AMENDED PER RECOUNT )
1592	1592
1593	1593	Margaret R. Scarsdale, of Pepperell (Democratic) has .............................................. 9,409
1594	1594	and appears to be elected.
1595	1595	Andrew James Shepherd, of Townsend (Republican) has......................................... 9,402
1596	1596	Catherine Lundeen, of Pepperell (Independent) has .................................................. 1,075
1597	1597	All Others ................................................................................................................... 91
1598	1598	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 440
1599	1599	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,417
1600	1600
1601	1601
1602	1602	SECOND MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1603	1603
1604	1604	James Arciero, of Westford (Democratic) has ........................................................... 12,792
1605	1605	and appears to be elected.
1606	1606	Raymond Yinggang Xie, of Westford (Republican) has ........................................... 6,931
1607	1607	All Others ................................................................................................................... 7
1608	1608	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 455 28
1609	1609	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,185
1610	1610	THIRD MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1611	1611
1612	1612	Kate Hogan, of Stow (Democratic) has ..................................................................... 15,844
1613	1613	and appears to be elected.
1614	1614	All Others ................................................................................................................... 309
1615	1615	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,162
1616	1616	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,315
1617	1617
1618	1618
1619	1619	FOURTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1620	1620
1621	1621	Danielle W. Gregoire, of Marlborough (Democratic) has ......................................... 10,157
1622	1622	and appears to be elected.
1623	1623	All Others ................................................................................................................... 133
1624	1624	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,663
1625	1625	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 13,953
1626	1626
1627	1627
1628	1628	FIFTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1629	1629
1630	1630	David Paul Linsky, of Natick (Democratic) has ........................................................ 15,019
1631	1631	and appears to be elected.
1632	1632	All Others ................................................................................................................... 139
1633	1633	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,400
1634	1634	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,558
1635	1635
1636	1636
1637	1637	SIXTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1638	1638
1639	1639	Priscila S. Sousa, of Framingham (Democratic) has ................................................. 6,839
1640	1640	and appears to be elected.
1641	1641	All Others ................................................................................................................... 202
1642	1642	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,524
1643	1643	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 8,565
1644	1644
1645	1645
1646	1646	SEVENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1647	1647
1648	1648	Jack Patrick Lewis, of Framingham (Democratic) has .............................................. 13,362
1649	1649	and appears to be elected.
1650	1650	All Others ................................................................................................................... 170
1651	1651	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,822
1652	1652	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,354
1653	1653
1654	1654	29
1655	1655	EIGHTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1656	1656
1657	1657	James C. Arena-DeRosa, of Holliston (Democratic) has .......................................... 12,916
1658	1658	and appears to be elected.
1659	1659	Loring Barnes, of Millis (Republican) has ................................................................ 6,947
1660	1660	All Others ................................................................................................................... 10
1661	1661	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 636
1662	1662	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,509
1663	1663
1664	1664
1665	1665	NINTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1666	1666
1667	1667	Thomas M. Stanley, of Waltham (Democratic) has .................................................. 11,372
1668	1668	and appears to be elected.
1669	1669	All Others ................................................................................................................... 224
1670	1670	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,408
1671	1671	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 15,004
1672	1672
1673	1673
1674	1674	TENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1675	1675
1676	1676	John J. Lawn, Jr., of Watertown (Democratic) has .................................................... 9,979
1677	1677	and appears to be elected.
1678	1678	All Others ................................................................................................................... 138
1679	1679	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,862
1680	1680	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 12,979
1681	1681
1682	1682
1683	1683	ELEVENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1684	1684
1685	1685	Kay S. Khan, of Newton (Democratic) has ............................................................... 13,394
1686	1686	and appears to be elected.
1687	1687	All Others ................................................................................................................... 229
1688	1688	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,857
1689	1689	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,480
1690	1690
1691	1691
1692	1692	TWELFTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1693	1693
1694	1694	Ruth B. Balser, of Newton (Democratic) has ............................................................ 15,164
1695	1695	and appears to be elected.
1696	1696	All Others ................................................................................................................... 197
1697	1697	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,281
1698	1698	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,642
1699	1699	30
1700	1700	THIRTEENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1701	1701
1702	1702	Carmine Lawrence Gentile, of Sudbury (Democratic) has ........................................ 16,338
1703	1703	and appears to be elected.
1704	1704	All Others ................................................................................................................... 100
1705	1705	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,002
1706	1706	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 21,440
1707	1707
1708	1708
1709	1709	FOURTEENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1710	1710
1711	1711	Simon Cataldo, of Concord (Democratic) has ........................................................... 14,542
1712	1712	and appears to be elected.
1713	1713	Rodney E. Cleaves, of Chelmsford (Republican) has................................................ 5,400
1714	1714	All Others ................................................................................................................... 16
1715	1715	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 831
1716	1716	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,789
1717	1717
1718	1718
1719	1719	FIFTEENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1720	1720
1721	1721	Michelle Ciccolo, of Lexington (Democratic) has .................................................... 14,123
1722	1722	and appears to be elected.
1723	1723	All Others ................................................................................................................... 179
1724	1724	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,912
1725	1725	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,214
1726	1726
1727	1727
1728	1728	SIXTEENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1729	1729
1730	1730	Rodney M. Elliott., of Lowell (Democratic) has ....................................................... 7,270
1731	1731	and appears to be elected.
1732	1732	Karla Jean Miller., of Lowell (Republican) has ......................................................... 3,838
1733	1733	All Others ................................................................................................................... 24
1734	1734	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 707
1735	1735	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 11,839
1736	1736
1737	1737
1738	1738	SEVENTEENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1739	1739
1740	1740	Vanna Howard, of Lowell (Democratic) has ............................................................. 7,168
1741	1741	and appears to be elected.
1742	1742	All Others ................................................................................................................... 266
1743	1743	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,571
1744	1744	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 10,005
1745	1745	31
1746	1746	EIGHTEENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1747	1747
1748	1748	Rady Mom, of Lowell (Democratic) has ................................................................... 4,434
1749	1749	and appears to be elected.
1750	1750	All Others ................................................................................................................... 225
1751	1751	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,565
1752	1752	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 6,224
1753	1753
1754	1754
1755	1755	NINETEENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1756	1756
1757	1757	David A. Robertson, of Wilmington (Democratic) has ............................................. 10,248
1758	1758	and appears to be elected.
1759	1759	Paul Sarnowski, of Wilmington (Republican) has ..................................................... 7,955
1760	1760	All Others ................................................................................................................... 14
1761	1761	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 532
1762	1762	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,749
1763	1763
1764	1764
1765	1765	TWENTIETH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1766	1766
1767	1767	Bradley H. Jones, Jr., of North Reading (Republican) has ........................................ 16,194
1768	1768	and appears to be elected.
1769	1769	All Others ................................................................................................................... 162
1770	1770	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,134
1771	1771	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 21,490
1772	1772
1773	1773
1774	1774	TWENTY-FIRST MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1775	1775
1776	1776	Kenneth I. Gordon, of Bedford (Democratic) has ..................................................... 13,510
1777	1777	and appears to be elected.
1778	1778	All Others ................................................................................................................... 409
1779	1779	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,306
1780	1780	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,225
1781	1781
1782	1782
1783	1783	TWENTY-SECOND MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1784	1784
1785	1785	Marc T. Lombardo, of Billerica (Republican) has ..................................................... 9,224
1786	1786	and appears to be elected.
1787	1787	Teresa Nicole English, of Billerica (Democratic) has ............................................... 7,747
1788	1788	All Others ................................................................................................................... 25
1789	1789	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 347
1790	1790	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,343
1791	1791	32
1792	1792	TWENTY-THIRD MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1793	1793
1794	1794	Sean Garballey, of Arlington (Democratic) has ........................................................ 16,822
1795	1795	and appears to be elected.
1796	1796	All Others ................................................................................................................... 83
1797	1797	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,938
1798	1798	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,843
1799	1799
1800	1800
1801	1801	TWENTY-FOURTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1802	1802
1803	1803	David M. Rogers, of Cambridge (Democratic) has ................................................... 16,223
1804	1804	and appears to be elected.
1805	1805	All Others ................................................................................................................... 68
1806	1806	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,397
1807	1807	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,698
1808	1808
1809	1809
1810	1810	TWENTY-FIFTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1811	1811
1812	1812	Marjorie C. Decker, of Cambridge (Democratic) has ................................................ 11,018
1813	1813	and appears to be elected.
1814	1814	All Others ................................................................................................................... 56
1815	1815	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,897
1816	1816	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 12,971
1817	1817
1818	1818
1819	1819	TWENTY-SIXTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1820	1820
1821	1821	Mike Connolly, of Cambridge (Democratic) has ...................................................... 11,714
1822	1822	and appears to be elected.
1823	1823	All Others ................................................................................................................... 111
1824	1824	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,506
1825	1825	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 14,331
1826	1826
1827	1827
1828	1828	TWENTY-SEVENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1829	1829
1830	1830	Erika Uyterhoeven, of Somerville (Democratic) has ................................................. 15,698
1831	1831	and appears to be elected.
1832	1832	All Others ................................................................................................................... 227
1833	1833	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,262
1834	1834	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,187
1835	1835
1836	1836	33
1837	1837	TWENTY-EIGHTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1838	1838
1839	1839	Joseph W. McGonagle, of Everett (Democratic) has ................................................ 4,713
1840	1840	and appears to be elected.
1841	1841	Michael W. Marchese, of Everett (Unenrolled) has .................................................. 1,943
1842	1842	All Others ................................................................................................................... 68
1843	1843	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 747
1844	1844	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 7,471
1845	1845
1846	1846
1847	1847	TWENTY-NINTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1848	1848
1849	1849	Steven C. Owens, of Watertown (Democratic) has ................................................... 14,817
1850	1850	and appears to be elected.
1851	1851	All Others ................................................................................................................... 51
1852	1852	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,226
1853	1853	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,094
1854	1854
1855	1855
1856	1856	THIRTIETH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1857	1857
1858	1858	Richard M. Haggerty, of Woburn (Democratic) has ................................................. 13,027
1859	1859	and appears to be elected.
1860	1860	All Others ................................................................................................................... 80
1861	1861	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,742
1862	1862	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,849
1863	1863
1864	1864
1865	1865	THIRTY-FIRST MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1866	1866
1867	1867	Michael Seamus Day, of Stoneham (Democratic) has .............................................. 12,527
1868	1868	and appears to be elected.
1869	1869	Theodore Christos Menounos, of Winchester (Independent) has .............................. 5,079
1870	1870	All Others ................................................................................................................... 66
1871	1871	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,856
1872	1872	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,528
1873	1873
1874	1874
1875	1875	THIRTY-SECOND MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1876	1876
1877	1877	Kate Lipper-Garabedian, of Melrose (Democratic) has ............................................ 14,673
1878	1878	and appears to be elected.
1879	1879	All Others ................................................................................................................... 338
1880	1880	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,962
1881	1881	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,973
1882	1882	34
1883	1883	THIRTY-THIRD MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1884	1884
1885	1885	Steven Ultrino, of Malden (Democratic) has ............................................................. 7,817
1886	1886	and appears to be elected.
1887	1887	All Others ................................................................................................................... 216
1888	1888	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,027
1889	1889	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 10,060
1890	1890
1891	1891
1892	1892	THIRTY-FOURTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1893	1893
1894	1894	Christine P. Barber, of Somerville (Democratic) has ................................................ 11,675
1895	1895	and appears to be elected.
1896	1896	All Others ................................................................................................................... 76
1897	1897	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,621
1898	1898	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 14,372
1899	1899
1900	1900
1901	1901	THIRTY-FIFTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1902	1902
1903	1903	Paul J. Donato, of Medford (Democratic) has ........................................................... 10,474
1904	1904	and appears to be elected.
1905	1905	All Others ................................................................................................................... 112
1906	1906	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,245
1907	1907	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 13,831
1908	1908
1909	1909
1910	1910	THIRTY-SIXTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1911	1911
1912	1912	Colleen M. Garry, of Dracut (Democratic) has ......................................................... 10,025
1913	1913	and appears to be elected.
1914	1914	George Derek Boag, of Dracut (Republican) has ...................................................... 6,506
1915	1915	All Others ................................................................................................................... 0
1916	1916	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 581
1917	1917	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,112
1918	1918
1919	1919
1920	1920	THIRTY-SEVENTH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
1921	1921
1922	1922	Danillo A. Sena, of Acton (Democratic) has ............................................................. 14,330
1923	1923	and appears to be elected.
1924	1924	All Others ................................................................................................................... 197
1925	1925	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,477
1926	1926	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,004
1927	1927	35
1928	1928	FIRST NORFOLK DISTRICT
1929	1929
1930	1930	Bruce J. Ayers, of Quincy (Democratic) has ............................................................. 11,027
1931	1931	and appears to be elected.
1932	1932	All Others ................................................................................................................... 199
1933	1933	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,565
1934	1934	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 13,791
1935	1935
1936	1936
1937	1937	SECOND NORFOLK DISTRICT
1938	1938
1939	1939	Tackey Chan, of Quincy (Democratic) has ................................................................ 9,888
1940	1940	and appears to be elected.
1941	1941	Sharon Marie Cintolo, of Quincy (Republican) has .................................................. 4,119
1942	1942	All Others ................................................................................................................... 14
1943	1943	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 671
1944	1944	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 14,692
1945	1945
1946	1946
1947	1947	THIRD NORFOLK DISTRICT
1948	1948
1949	1949	Ronald Mariano, of Quincy (Democratic) has ........................................................... 10,085
1950	1950	and appears to be elected.
1951	1951	All Others ................................................................................................................... 273
1952	1952	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,358
1953	1953	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 13,716
1954	1954
1955	1955
1956	1956	FOURTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
1957	1957
1958	1958	James Michael Murphy, of Weymouth (Democratic) has ......................................... 10,255
1959	1959	and appears to be elected.
1960	1960	Paul J. Rotondo, of Weymouth (Republican) has ...................................................... 5,778
1961	1961	All Others ................................................................................................................... 12
1962	1962	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 444
1963	1963	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,489
1964	1964
1965	1965
1966	1966	FIFTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
1967	1967
1968	1968	Mark J. Cusack, of Braintree (Democratic) has ......................................................... 11,309
1969	1969	and appears to be elected.
1970	1970	All Others ................................................................................................................... 376
1971	1971	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,406
1972	1972	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,091 36
1973	1973	SIXTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
1974	1974
1975	1975	William C. Galvin, of Canton (Democratic) has ....................................................... 12,778
1976	1976	and appears to be elected.
1977	1977	All Others ................................................................................................................... 113
1978	1978	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,909
1979	1979	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,800
1980	1980
1981	1981
1982	1982	SEVENTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
1983	1983
1984	1984	William J. Driscoll, Jr., of Milton (Democratic) has ................................................. 12,322
1985	1985	and appears to be elected.
1986	1986	All Others ................................................................................................................... 192
1987	1987	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,793
1988	1988	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,307
1989	1989
1990	1990
1991	1991	EIGHTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
1992	1992
1993	1993	Ted Philips, of Sharon (Democratic) has ................................................................... 12,257
1994	1994	and appears to be elected.
1995	1995	Howard L. Terban, of Stoughton (Republican) has ................................................... 5,400
1996	1996	All Others ................................................................................................................... 8
1997	1997	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,059
1998	1998	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,724
1999	1999
2000	2000
2001	2001	NINTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
2002	2002
2003	2003	Kevin Kalkut, of Norfolk (Democratic) has .............................................................. 10,174
2004	2004	Marcus S. Vaughn, of Wrentham (Republican) has .................................................. 10,534
2005	2005	and appears to be elected.
2006	2006	All Others ................................................................................................................... 12
2007	2007	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 582
2008	2008	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 21,302
2009	2009
2010	2010
2011	2011	TENTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
2012	2012
2013	2013	Jeffrey N. Roy, of Franklin (Democratic) has ........................................................... 12,045
2014	2014	and appears to be elected.
2015	2015	Charles F. Bailey, III, of Franklin (Republican) has .................................................. 6,852
2016	2016	All Others ................................................................................................................... 16
2017	2017	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 501
2018	2018	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,414 37
2019	2019	ELEVENTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
2020	2020
2021	2021	Paul McMurtry, of Dedham (Democratic) has .......................................................... 14,495
2022	2022	and appears to be elected.
2023	2023	All Others ................................................................................................................... 215
2024	2024	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,966
2025	2025	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,676
2026	2026
2027	2027
2028	2028	TWELFTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
2029	2029
2030	2030	John H. Rogers, of Norwood (Democratic) has ......................................................... 12,798
2031	2031	and appears to be elected.
2032	2032	All Others ................................................................................................................... 272
2033	2033	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,975
2034	2034	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,045
2035	2035
2036	2036
2037	2037	THIRTEENTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
2038	2038
2039	2039	Denise C. Garlick, of Needham (Democratic) has .................................................... 17,056
2040	2040	and appears to be elected.
2041	2041	All Others ................................................................................................................... 356
2042	2042	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,312
2043	2043	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 21,724
2044	2044
2045	2045
2046	2046	FOURTEENTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
2047	2047
2048	2048	Alice Hanlon Peisch, of Wellesley (Democratic) has ................................................ 14,057
2049	2049	and appears to be elected.
2050	2050	David Rolde, of Weston (Green-Rainbow) has ......................................................... 1,167
2051	2051	All Others ................................................................................................................... 120
2052	2052	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,225
2053	2053	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,569
2054	2054
2055	2055
2056	2056	FIFTEENTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
2057	2057
2058	2058	Tommy Vitolo, of Brookline (Democratic) has ......................................................... 12,906
2059	2059	and appears to be elected.
2060	2060	All Others ................................................................................................................... 190
2061	2061	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,301
2062	2062	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 15,397
2063	2063
2064	2064	38
2065	2065	FIRST PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2066	2066
2067	2067	Mathew J. Muratore, of Plymouth (Republican) has ................................................. 12,470
2068	2068	and appears to be elected.
2069	2069	Stephen Michael Palmer, of Plymouth (Democratic) has .......................................... 9,121
2070	2070	All Others ................................................................................................................... 19
2071	2071	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 588
2072	2072	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 22,198
2073	2073
2074	2074
2075	2075	SECOND PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2076	2076
2077	2077	Susan Williams Gifford, of Wareham (Republican) has ........................................... 13,019
2078	2078	and appears to be elected.
2079	2079	All Others ................................................................................................................... 206
2080	2080	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,048
2081	2081	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,273
2082	2082
2083	2083
2084	2084	THIRD PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2085	2085
2086	2086	Joan Meschino, of Hull (Democratic) has ................................................................. 15,999
2087	2087	and appears to be elected.
2088	2088	All Others ................................................................................................................... 375
2089	2089	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,849
2090	2090	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 22,223
2091	2091
2092	2092
2093	2093	FOURTH PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2094	2094
2095	2095	Patrick Joseph Kearney, of Scituate (Democratic) has .............................................. 17,384
2096	2096	and appears to be elected.
2097	2097	All Others ................................................................................................................... 137
2098	2098	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 6,218
2099	2099	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 23,739
2100	2100
2101	2101
2102	2102	FIFTH PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2103	2103
2104	2104	David F. DeCoste, of Norwell (Republican) has ....................................................... 10,039
2105	2105	and appears to be elected.
2106	2106	Emmanuel J. Dockter, of Hanover (Democratic) has ................................................ 9,363
2107	2107	All Others ................................................................................................................... 11
2108	2108	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 419
2109	2109	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 19,832 39
2110	2110	SIXTH PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2111	2111
2112	2112	Josh S. Cutler, of Duxbury (Democratic) has ............................................................ 12,163
2113	2113	and appears to be elected.
2114	2114	Kenneth Sweezey, of Hanson (Republican) has ........................................................ 9,503
2115	2115	All Others ................................................................................................................... 1
2116	2116	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 373
2117	2117	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 22,040
2118	2118
2119	2119
2120	2120	SEVENTH PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2121	2121
2122	2122	Alyson M. Sullivan, of Abington (Republican) has .................................................. 12,083
2123	2123	and appears to be elected.
2124	2124	Brandon J. Griffin, of Whitman (Workers Party) has ................................................ 3,945
2125	2125	All Others ................................................................................................................... 23
2126	2126	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,636
2127	2127	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,687
2128	2128
2129	2129
2130	2130	EIGHTH PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2131	2131
2132	2132	Angelo L. D’Emilia, of Bridgewater (Republican) has ............................................. 9,449
2133	2133	and appears to be elected.
2134	2134	Eric J. Haikola, of Raynham (Democratic) has ......................................................... 6,299
2135	2135	All Others ................................................................................................................... 4
2136	2136	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 620
2137	2137	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,372
2138	2138
2139	2139
2140	2140	NINTH PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2141	2141
2142	2142	Gerard J. Cassidy, of Brockton (Democratic) has ..................................................... 9,357
2143	2143	and appears to be elected.
2144	2144	Lawrence P. Novak, of Brockton (Republican) has .................................................. 6,072
2145	2145	All Others ................................................................................................................... 25
2146	2146	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 896
2147	2147	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,350
2148	2148
2149	2149
2150	2150	TENTH PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2151	2151
2152	2152	Michelle M. DuBois, of Brockton (Democratic) has ................................................. 7,031
2153	2153	and appears to be elected.
2154	2154	All Others ................................................................................................................... 103
2155	2155	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,220
2156	2156	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 9,354 40
2157	2157	ELEVENTH PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2158	2158
2159	2159	Rita A. Mendes, of Brockton (Democratic) has ........................................................ 5,066
2160	2160	and appears to be elected.
2161	2161	Fred Fontaine (Write-in), of Brockton has ................................................................ 414
2162	2162	All Others ................................................................................................................... 53
2163	2163	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 863
2164	2164	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 6,396
2165	2165
2166	2166
2167	2167	TWELFTH PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2168	2168
2169	2169	Kathleen R. LaNatra, of Kingston (Democratic) has ................................................. 10,603
2170	2170	and appears to be elected.
2171	2171	Eric J. Meschino, of Plymouth (Republican) has ...................................................... 8,767
2172	2172	Charles F. McCoy, Jr., of Kingston (Non-Party Candidate) has ............................... 856
2173	2173	All Others ................................................................................................................... 5
2174	2174	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 593
2175	2175	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,824
2176	2176
2177	2177
2178	2178	FIRST SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2179	2179
2180	2180	Adrian C. Madaro, of Boston (Democratic) has ........................................................ 7,022
2181	2181	and appears to be elected.
2182	2182	All Others ................................................................................................................... 165
2183	2183	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,640
2184	2184	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 8,827
2185	2185
2186	2186
2187	2187	SECOND SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2188	2188
2189	2189	Daniel Joseph Ryan, of Boston (Democratic) has ..................................................... 8,963
2190	2190	and appears to be elected.
2191	2191	All Others ................................................................................................................... 130
2192	2192	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,174
2193	2193	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 11,267
2194	2194
2195	2195
2196	2196
2197	2197
2198	2198
2199	2199
2200	2200
2201	2201
2202	2202
2203	2203
2204	2204	41
2205	2205	THIRD SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2206	2206
2207	2207	Aaron M. Michlewitz, of Boston (Democratic) has .................................................. 9,238
2208	2208	and appears to be elected.
2209	2209	All Others ................................................................................................................... 161
2210	2210	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,753
2211	2211	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 12,152
2212	2212
2213	2213
2214	2214	FOURTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2215	2215
2216	2216	David M. Biele, of Boston (Democratic) has ............................................................ 11,566
2217	2217	and appears to be elected.
2218	2218	All Others ................................................................................................................... 282
2219	2219	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,123
2220	2220	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 14,971
2221	2221
2222	2222
2223	2223	FIFTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2224	2224
2225	2225	Christopher J. Worrell, of Boston (Democratic) has ................................................. 5,939
2226	2226	and appears to be elected.
2227	2227	Roy A. Owens, Sr., of Boston (Independent) has ...................................................... 750
2228	2228	Althea Garrison (Write-in), of Boston has ................................................................. 15
2229	2229	All Others ................................................................................................................... 29
2230	2230	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 676
2231	2231	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 7,409
2232	2232
2233	2233
2234	2234	SIXTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2235	2235
2236	2236	Russell E. Holmes, of Boston (Democratic) has........................................................ 7,675
2237	2237	and appears to be elected.
2238	2238	All Others ................................................................................................................... 109
2239	2239	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,342
2240	2240	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 9,126
2241	2241
2242	2242
2243	2243	SEVENTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2244	2244
2245	2245	Chynah Tyler, of Boston (Democratic) has ............................................................... 5,317
2246	2246	and appears to be elected.
2247	2247	All Others ................................................................................................................... 77
2248	2248	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 932
2249	2249	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 6,326
2250	2250	42
2251	2251	EIGHTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2252	2252
2253	2253	Jay D. Livingstone, of Boston (Democratic) has ....................................................... 9,701
2254	2254	and appears to be elected.
2255	2255	All Others ................................................................................................................... 185
2256	2256	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,457
2257	2257	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 12,343
2258	2258
2259	2259
2260	2260	NINTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2261	2261
2262	2262	Jon Santiago, of Boston (Democratic) has ................................................................. 9,957
2263	2263	and appears to be elected.
2264	2264	All Others ................................................................................................................... 141
2265	2265	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,082
2266	2266	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 12,180
2267	2267
2268	2268
2269	2269	TENTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2270	2270
2271	2271	Edward Francis Coppinger, of Boston (Democratic) has .......................................... 15,817
2272	2272	and appears to be elected.
2273	2273	All Others ................................................................................................................... 7
2274	2274	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,059
2275	2275	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 20,883
2276	2276
2277	2277
2278	2278	ELEVENTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2279	2279
2280	2280	Judith A. Garcia, of Chelsea (Democratic) has .......................................................... 4,127
2281	2281	and appears to be elected.
2282	2282	Todd B. Taylor, of Chelsea (Republican) has ............................................................ 1,552
2283	2283	All Others ................................................................................................................... 5
2284	2284	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 306
2285	2285	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 5,990
2286	2286
2287	2287
2288	2288	TWELFTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2289	2289
2290	2290	Brandy Fluker Oakley, of Boston (Democratic) has ................................................. 10,729
2291	2291	and appears to be elected.
2292	2292	All Others ................................................................................................................... 120
2293	2293	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,234
2294	2294	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 13,083
2295	2295	43
2296	2296	THIRTEENTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2297	2297
2298	2298	Daniel J. Hunt, of Boston (Democratic) has .............................................................. 8,761
2299	2299	and appears to be elected.
2300	2300	All Others ................................................................................................................... 255
2301	2301	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,800
2302	2302	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 11,816
2303	2303
2304	2304
2305	2305	FOURTEENTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2306	2306
2307	2307	Rob Consalvo, of Boston (Democratic) has .............................................................. 11,565
2308	2308	and appears to be elected.
2309	2309	All Others ................................................................................................................... 151
2310	2310	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,330
2311	2311	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 14,046
2312	2312
2313	2313
2314	2314	FIFTEENTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2315	2315
2316	2316	Samantha Montaño, of Boston (Democratic) has ...................................................... 13,030
2317	2317	and appears to be elected.
2318	2318	All Others ................................................................................................................... 154
2319	2319	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,139
2320	2320	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 15,323
2321	2321
2322	2322
2323	2323	SIXTEENTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2324	2324
2325	2325	Jessica Ann Giannino, of Revere (Democratic) has .................................................. 5,753
2326	2326	and appears to be elected.
2327	2327	All Others ................................................................................................................... 175
2328	2328	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,491
2329	2329	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 8,419
2330	2330
2331	2331
2332	2332	SEVENTEENTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2333	2333
2334	2334	Kevin G. Honan, of Boston (Democratic) has ........................................................... 9,581
2335	2335	and appears to be elected.
2336	2336	All Others ................................................................................................................... 150
2337	2337	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,756
2338	2338	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 11,487
2339	2339
2340	2340	44
2341	2341	EIGHTEENTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2342	2342
2343	2343	Michael J. Moran, of Boston (Democratic) has ......................................................... 6,200
2344	2344	and appears to be elected.
2345	2345	All Others ................................................................................................................... 102
2346	2346	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,456
2347	2347	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 7,758
2348	2348
2349	2349
2350	2350	NINETEENTH SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2351	2351
2352	2352	Jeffrey Rosario Turco, of Winthrop (Democratic) has .............................................. 7,803
2353	2353	and appears to be elected.
2354	2354	All Others ................................................................................................................... 385
2355	2355	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,333
2356	2356	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 11,521
2357	2357
2358	2358
2359	2359	FIRST WORCESTER DISTRICT
2360	2360
2361	2361	Kimberly N. Ferguson, of Holden (Republican) has ................................................. 16,342
2362	2362	and appears to be elected.
2363	2363	All Others ................................................................................................................... 105
2364	2364	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 5,275
2365	2365	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 21,722
2366	2366
2367	2367
2368	2368	SECOND WORCESTER DISTRICT
2369	2369
2370	2370	Jonathan D. Zlotnik, of Gardner (Democratic) has .................................................... 7,667
2371	2371	and appears to be elected.
2372	2372	Bruce K. Chester, of Gardner (Republican) has ........................................................ 6,664
2373	2373	All Others ................................................................................................................... 7
2374	2374	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 285
2375	2375	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 14,623
2376	2376
2377	2377
2378	2378	THIRD WORCESTER DISTRICT
2379	2379
2380	2380	Michael P. Kushmerek, of Fitchburg (Democratic) has ............................................ 6,824
2381	2381	and appears to be elected.
2382	2382	Aaron L. Packard, of Fitchburg (Republican) has ..................................................... 4,058
2383	2383	All Others ................................................................................................................... 7
2384	2384	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 501
2385	2385	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 11,390
2386	2386	45
2387	2387	FOURTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2388	2388
2389	2389	Natalie Higgins, of Leominster (Democratic) has ..................................................... 7,193
2390	2390	and appears to be elected.
2391	2391	John M. Dombrowski, of Leominster (Unenrolled) has ............................................ 6,510
2392	2392	All Others ................................................................................................................... 11
2393	2393	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 737
2394	2394	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 14,451
2395	2395
2396	2396
2397	2397	FIFTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2398	2398
2399	2399	Donald R. Berthiaume, Jr., of Spencer (Republican) has .......................................... 14,151
2400	2400	and appears to be elected.
2401	2401	All Others ................................................................................................................... 235
2402	2402	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,188
2403	2403	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,574
2404	2404
2405	2405
2406	2406	SIXTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2407	2407
2408	2408	Peter J. Durant, of Spencer (Republican) has ............................................................ 10,526
2409	2409	and appears to elected.
2410	2410	All Others ................................................................................................................... 186
2411	2411	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,209
2412	2412	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 13,921
2413	2413
2414	2414
2415	2415	SEVENTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2416	2416
2417	2417	Paul K. Frost, of Auburn (Republican) has................................................................ 12,432
2418	2418	and appears to be elected.
2419	2419	Terry Burke Dotson, of Millbury (Unenrolled) has ................................................... 4,067
2420	2420	All Others ................................................................................................................... 64
2421	2421	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,477
2422	2422	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,040
2423	2423
2424	2424
2425	2425	EIGHTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2426	2426
2427	2427	Michael J. Soter, of Bellingham (Republican) has .................................................... 13,182
2428	2428	and appears to be elected.
2429	2429	All Others ................................................................................................................... 251
2430	2430	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,993
2431	2431	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,426 46
2432	2432	NINTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2433	2433
2434	2434	David K. Muradian, Jr., of Grafton (Republican) has ............................................... 13,516
2435	2435	and appears to be elected.
2436	2436	All Others ................................................................................................................... 170
2437	2437	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,740
2438	2438	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,426
2439	2439
2440	2440
2441	2441	TENTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2442	2442
2443	2443	Brian William Murray, of Milford (Democratic) has ................................................ 10,323
2444	2444	and appears to be elected.
2445	2445	All Others ................................................................................................................... 92
2446	2446	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,693
2447	2447	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 15,108
2448	2448
2449	2449
2450	2450	ELEVENTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2451	2451
2452	2452	Hannah E. Kane, of Shrewsbury (Republican) has.................................................... 9,194
2453	2453	and appears to be elected.
2454	2454	Stephen Fishman, of Shrewsbury (Democratic) has .................................................. 6,496
2455	2455	All Others ................................................................................................................... 5
2456	2456	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 466
2457	2457	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,161
2458	2458
2459	2459
2460	2460	TWELFTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2461	2461
2462	2462	Meghan K. Kilcoyne, of Clinton (Democratic) has ................................................... 11,044
2463	2463	and appears to be elected.
2464	2464	Michael A. Vulcano, of Northborough (Republican) has .......................................... 7,247
2465	2465	All Others ................................................................................................................... 9
2466	2466	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 563
2467	2467	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 18,863
2468	2468
2469	2469
2470	2470	THIRTEENTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2471	2471
2472	2472	John J. Mahoney, of Worcester (Democratic) has ..................................................... 10,413
2473	2473	and appears to be elected.
2474	2474	All Others ................................................................................................................... 261
2475	2475	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,756
2476	2476	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 13,430 47
2477	2477	FOURTEENTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2478	2478
2479	2479	James J. O’Day, of West Boylston (Democratic) has ................................................ 9,293
2480	2480	and appears to be elected.
2481	2481	All Others ................................................................................................................... 430
2482	2482	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,758
2483	2483	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 12,481
2484	2484
2485	2485
2486	2486	FIFTEENTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2487	2487
2488	2488	Mary S. Keefe, of Worcester (Democratic) has ......................................................... 4,540
2489	2489	and appears to be elected.
2490	2490	All Others ................................................................................................................... 150
2491	2491	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,057
2492	2492	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 5,747
2493	2493
2494	2494
2495	2495	SIXTEENTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2496	2496
2497	2497	Daniel M. Donahue, of Worcester (Democratic) has ................................................ 6,111
2498	2498	and appears to be elected.
2499	2499	All Others ................................................................................................................... 274
2500	2500	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 1,747
2501	2501	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 8,132
2502	2502
2503	2503
2504	2504	SEVENTEENTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2505	2505
2506	2506	David Henry Argosky LeBoeuf, of Worcester (Democratic) has .............................. 4,745
2507	2507	and appears to be elected.
2508	2508	Paul J. Fullen, of Worcester (Republican) has ........................................................... 3,270
2509	2509	All Others ................................................................................................................... 17
2510	2510	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 367
2511	2511	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 8,399
2512	2512
2513	2513
2514	2514	EIGHTEENTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2515	2515
2516	2516	Joseph D. McKenna, of Webster (Republican) has ................................................... 13,642
2517	2517	and appears to be elected.
2518	2518	All Others ................................................................................................................... 169
2519	2519	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,178
2520	2520	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,989
2521	2521
2522	2522	48
2523	2523	NINETEENTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
2524	2524
2525	2525	Kate Donaghue, of Westborough (Democratic) has .................................................. 11,560
2526	2526	and appears to be elected.
2527	2527	Jonathan I. Hostage, of Southborough (Republican) has ........................................... 5,560
2528	2528	All Others ................................................................................................................... 8
2529	2529	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 510
2530	2530	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,638
2531	2531
2532	2532
2533	2533
2534	2534	DISTRICT ATTORNEY
2535	2535
2536	2536
2537	2537	BERKSHIRE DISTRICT
2538	2538
2539	2539	Timothy J. Shugrue, of Pittsfield (Democratic) has .................................................. 41,064
2540	2540	and appears to be elected.
2541	2541	All Others ................................................................................................................... 447
2542	2542	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 8,131
2543	2543	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 49,642
2544	2544
2545	2545
2546	2546	BRISTOL DISTRICT
2547	2547
2548	2548	Thomas M. Quinn, III, of Fall River (Democratic) has ............................................. 127,376
2549	2549	and appears to be elected.
2550	2550	All Others ................................................................................................................... 2,699
2551	2551	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 55,460
2552	2552	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 185,535
2553	2553
2554	2554
2555	2555	CAPE & ISLANDS DISTRICT
2556	2556
2557	2557	Robert Joseph Galibois, of Barnstable (Democratic) has .......................................... 72,970
2558	2558	and appears to be elected.
2559	2559	Daniel Higgins, of Barnstable (Republican) has........................................................ 56,408
2560	2560	All Others ................................................................................................................... 40
2561	2561	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 3,677
2562	2562	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 133,095
2563	2563
2564	2564
2565	2565
2566	2566
2567	2567	49
2568	2568	EASTERN DISTRICT
2569	2569
2570	2570	Paul F. Tucker, of Salem (Democratic) has ............................................................... 203,382
2571	2571	and appears to be elected.
2572	2572	All Others ................................................................................................................... 5,340
2573	2573	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 80,669
2574	2574	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 289,391
2575	2575
2576	2576
2577	2577	HAMPDEN DISTRICT
2578	2578
2579	2579	Anthony D. Gulluni, of Springfield (Democratic) has .............................................. 105,525
2580	2580	and appears to be elected.
2581	2581	All Others ................................................................................................................... 2,460
2582	2582	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 31,718
2583	2583	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 139,703
2584	2584
2585	2585
2586	2586	MIDDLE DISTRICT
2587	2587
2588	2588	Joseph D. Early, Jr., of Worcester (Democratic) has ................................................. 209,803
2589	2589	and appears to be elected.
2590	2590	All Others ................................................................................................................... 5,501
2591	2591	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 76,765
2592	2592	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 292,069
2593	2593
2594	2594
2595	2595	NORFOLK DISTRICT
2596	2596
2597	2597	Michael W. Morrissey, of Quincy (Democratic) has ................................................. 208,563
2598	2598	and appears to be elected.
2599	2599	All Others ................................................................................................................... 3,750
2600	2600	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 75,606
2601	2601	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 287,919
2602	2602
2603	2603
2604	2604	NORTHERN DISTRICT
2605	2605
2606	2606	Marian T. Ryan, of Belmont (Democratic) has ......................................................... 451,484
2607	2607	and appears to be elected.
2608	2608	All Others ................................................................................................................... 6,994
2609	2609	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 153,747
2610	2610	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 612,225
2611	2611
2612	2612	50
2613	2613	NORTHWESTERN DISTRICT
2614	2614
2615	2615	David E. Sullivan, of Easthampton (Democratic) has ............................................... 80,079
2616	2616	and appears to be elected.
2617	2617	All Others ................................................................................................................... 1,150
2618	2618	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 19,758
2619	2619	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 100,987
2620	2620
2621	2621
2622	2622	PLYMOUTH DISTRICT
2623	2623
2624	2624	Timothy J. Cruz, of Marshfield (Republican) has ..................................................... 132,133
2625	2625	and appears to be elected.
2626	2626	Rahsaan Hall, of Brockton (Democratic) has ............................................................ 77,685
2627	2627	All Others ................................................................................................................... 114
2628	2628	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 6,776
2629	2629	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 216,708
2630	2630
2631	2631
2632	2632	SUFFOLK DISTRICT
2633	2633
2634	2634	Kevin R. Hayden, of Boston (Democratic) has ......................................................... 153,490
2635	2635	and appears to be elected.
2636	2636	All Others ................................................................................................................... 4,240
2637	2637	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 46,457
2638	2638	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 204,187
2639	2639
2640	2640
2641	2641
2642	2642	SHERIFF
2643	2643
2644	2644
2645	2645	BARNSTABLE COUNTY
2646	2646
2647	2647	Donna D. Buckley, of Falmouth (Democratic) has .................................... 60,124
2648	2648	and appears to be elected.
2649	2649	Timothy R. Whelan, of Brewster (Republican) has .................................... 56,201
2650	2650	All Others .................................................................................................... 39
2651	2651	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 2,369
2652	2652	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 118,733
2653	2653
2654	2654
2655	2655
2656	2656
2657	2657	51
2658	2658	BERKSHIRE COUNTY
2659	2659
2660	2660	Thomas N. Bowler, of Pittsfield (Democratic) has..................................... 41,713
2661	2661	and appears to be elected.
2662	2662	All Others .................................................................................................... 301
2663	2663	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 7,628
2664	2664	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 49,642
2665	2665
2666	2666
2667	2667	BRISTOL COUNTY
2668	2668
2669	2669	Thomas M. Hodgson, of Dartmouth (Republican) has ............................... 88,910
2670	2670	Paul R. Heroux, of Attleboro (Democratic) has ......................................... 92,201
2671	2671	and appears to be elected.
2672	2672	All Others .................................................................................................... 126
2673	2673	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 4,298
2674	2674	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 185,535
2675	2675
2676	2676
2677	2677	DUKES COUNTY
2678	2678
2679	2679	Robert Ogden, of West Tisbury (Democratic) has ..................................... 7,504
2680	2680	and appears to be elected.
2681	2681	Erik Blake (Write-in), of West Tisbury has ................................................ 50
2682	2682	All Others .................................................................................................... 80
2683	2683	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 1,773
2684	2684	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 9,407
2685	2685
2686	2686
2687	2687	ESSEX COUNTY
2688	2688
2689	2689	Kevin F. Coppinger, of Lynn (Democratic) has ......................................... 203,862
2690	2690	and appears to be elected.
2691	2691	All Others .................................................................................................... 5,202
2692	2692	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 80,327
2693	2693	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 289,391
2694	2694
2695	2695
2696	2696	FRANKLIN COUNTY
2697	2697
2698	2698	Christopher J. Donelan, of Greenfield (Democratic) has ........................... 25,594
2699	2699	and appears to be elected.
2700	2700	All Others .................................................................................................... 320
2701	2701	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 6,056
2702	2702	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 31,970
2703	2703
2704	2704	52
2705	2705	HAMPDEN COUNTY
2706	2706
2707	2707	Nick Cocchi, of Ludlow (Democratic) has ................................................. 108,133
2708	2708	and appears to be elected.
2709	2709	All Others .................................................................................................... 2,365
2710	2710	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 29,205
2711	2711	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 139,703
2712	2712
2713	2713
2714	2714	HAMPSHIRE COUNTY
2715	2715
2716	2716	Patrick J. Cahillane, of Northampton (Democratic) has ............................. 47,084
2717	2717	and appears to be elected.
2718	2718	Yvonne C. Gittelson (Write-in) of Goshen has .......................................... 6,006
2719	2719	All Others .................................................................................................... 528
2720	2720	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 11,711
2721	2721	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 65,329
2722	2722
2723	2723
2724	2724	MIDDLESEX COUNTY
2725	2725
2726	2726	Peter J. Koutoujian, of Waltham (Democratic) has .................................... 451,548
2727	2727	and appears to be elected.
2728	2728	All Others .................................................................................................... 6,852
2729	2729	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 153,825
2730	2730	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 612,225
2731	2731
2732	2732
2733	2733	NANTUCKET COUNTY
2734	2734
2735	2735	James A. Perelman, of Nantucket (Democratic) has .................................. 4,209
2736	2736	and appears to be elected.
2737	2737	David J. Aguiar, of Nantucket (Independent) has....................................... 610
2738	2738	All Others .................................................................................................... 7
2739	2739	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 129
2740	2740	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 4,955
2741	2741
2742	2742
2743	2743	NORFOLK COUNTY
2744	2744
2745	2745	Patrick W. McDermott, of Quincy (Democratic) has ................................. 205,834
2746	2746	and appears to be elected.
2747	2747	All Others .................................................................................................... 3,665
2748	2748	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 78,420
2749	2749	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 287,919
2750	2750	53
2751	2751	PLYMOUTH COUNTY
2752	2752
2753	2753	Joseph Daniel McDonald, Jr., of Kingston (Republican) has ..................... 154,682
2754	2754	and appears to be elected.
2755	2755	All Others .................................................................................................... 2,403
2756	2756	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 59,623
2757	2757	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 216,708
2758	2758
2759	2759
2760	2760	SUFFOLK COUNTY
2761	2761
2762	2762	Steven W. Tompkins of Boston (Democratic) has ..................................... 154,205
2763	2763	and appears to be elected.
2764	2764	All Others .................................................................................................... 3,753
2765	2765	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 46,229
2766	2766	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 204,187
2767	2767
2768	2768
2769	2769	WORCESTER COUNTY
2770	2770
2771	2771	Lewis G. Evangelidis, of Holden (Republican) has .................................... 166,968
2772	2772	and appears to be elected.
2773	2773	David M. Fontaine, of Paxton (Democratic) has ........................................ 116,582
2774	2774	All Others .................................................................................................... 302
2775	2775	Blanks ......................................................................................................... 11,905
2776	2776	Total Votes Cast .............................................................................. 295,757
2777	2777
2778	2778
2779	2779
2780	2780
2781	2781
2782	2782
2783	2783
2784	2784
2785	2785
2786	2786
2787	2787
2788	2788
2789	2789
2790	2790
2791	2791
2792	2792
2793	2793
2794	2794
2795	2795
2796	2796	54
2797	2797	STATEWIDE BALLOT QUESTIONS
2798	2798
2799	2799
2800	2800	QUESTION 1
2801	2801	PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
2802	2802
2803	2803	Do you approve of the adoption of an amendment to the constitution summarized below,
2804	2804	which was approved by the General Court in joint sessions of the two houses on June 12, 2019
2805	2805	(yeas 147 – nays 48); and again on June 9, 2021 (yea 159 – nays 41)?
2806	2806
2807	2807	SUMMARY
2808	2808	This proposed constitutional amendment would establish an additional 4% state income
2809	2809	tax on that portion of annual taxable income in excess of $1 million. This income level would be
2810	2810	adjusted annually, by the same method used for federal income-tax brackets, to reflect increases
2811	2811	in the cost of living. Revenues from this tax would be used, subject to appropriation by the state
2812	2812	Legislature, for public education, public colleges and universities; and for the repair and
2813	2813	maintenance of roads, bridges, and public transportation. The proposed amendment would apply
2814	2814	to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023.
2815	2815
2816	2816	YES NO BLANK TOTAL
2817	2817
2818	2818	County of Barnstable 55,414 60,152 3,167 118,733
2819	2819	County of Berkshire 32,183 15,429 2,030 49,642
2820	2820	County of Bristol 82,774 94,585 8,176 185,535
2821	2821	County of Dukes County 5,322 3,705 380 9,407
2822	2822	County of Essex 138,519 140,903 9,969 289,391
2823	2823	County of Franklin 21,052 9,859 1,059 31,970
2824	2824	County of Hampden 66,168 67,958 5,577 139,703
2825	2825	County of Hampshire 43,042 20,526 1,761 65,329
2826	2826	County of Middlesex 330,947 262,652 18,626 612,225
2827	2827	County of Nantucket 2,131 2,387 437 4,955
2828	2828	County of Norfolk 134,679 143,144 10,096 287,919
2829	2829	County of Plymouth 91,819 117,953 6,936 216,708
2830	2830	County of Suffolk 124,409 70,476 9,302 204,187
2831	2831	County of Worcester 138,673 148,496 8,588 295,757
2832	2832
2833	2833	TOTAL 1,267,132 1,158,225 86,104 2,511,461
2834	2834
2835	2835
2836	2836	55
2837	2837	QUESTION 2
2838	2838	LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
2839	2839
2840	2840	Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate
2841	2841	or the House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2022?
2842	2842
2843	2843	SUMMARY
2844	2844	This proposed law would direct the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Division of
2845	2845	Insurance to approve or disapprove the rates of dental benefit plans and would require that a
2846	2846	dental insurance carrier meet an annual aggregate medical loss ratio for its covered dental benefit
2847	2847	plans of 83 percent. The medical loss ratio would measure the amount of premium dollars a
2848	2848	dental insurance carrier spends on its members’ dental expenses and quality improvements, as
2849	2849	opposed to administrative expenses. If a carrier’s annual aggregate medical loss ratio is less than
2850	2850	83 percent, the carrier would be required to refund the excess premiums to its covered
2851	2851	individuals and groups. The proposed law would allow the Commissioner to waive or adjust the
2852	2852	refunds only if it is determined that issuing refunds would result in financial impairment for the
2853	2853	carrier.
2854	2854	The proposed law would apply to dental benefit plans regardless of whether they are
2855	2855	issued directly by a carrier, through the connector, or through an intermediary. The proposed law
2856	2856	would not apply to dental benefit plans issued, delivered, or renewed to a self-insured group or
2857	2857	where the carrier is acting as a third-party administrator.
2858	2858	The proposed law would require the carriers offering dental benefit plans to submit
2859	2859	information about their current and projected medical loss ratio, administrative expenses, and
2860	2860	other financial information to the Commissioner. Each carrier would be required to submit an
2861	2861	annual comprehensive financial statement to the Division of Insurance, itemized by market
2862	2862	group size and line of business. A carrier that also provides administrative services to one or
2863	2863	more self-insured groups would also be required to file an appendix to their annual financial
2864	2864	statement with information about its self-insured business. The proposed law would impose a
2865	2865	late penalty on a carrier that does not file its annual report on or before April 1.
2866	2866	The Division would be required to make the submitted data public, to issue an annual
2867	2867	summary to certain legislative committees, and to exchange the data with the Health Policy
2868	2868	Commission. The Commissioner would be required to adopt standards requiring the registration
2869	2869	of persons or entities not otherwise licensed or registered by the Commissioner and criteria for
2870	2870	the standardized reporting and uniform allocation methodologies among carriers.
2871	2871	The proposed law would allow the Commissioner to approve dental benefit policies for
2872	2872	the purpose of being offered to individuals or groups. The Commissioner would be required to
2873	2873	adopt regulations to determine eligibility criteria.
2874	2874	The proposed law would require carriers to file group product base rates and any changes
2875	2875	to group rating factors that are to be effective on January 1 of each year on or before July 1 of the
2876	2876	preceding year. The Commissioner would be required to disapprove any proposed changes to
2877	2877	base rates that are excessive, inadequate, or unreasonable in relation to the benefits charged. The
2878	2878	Commissioner would also be required to disapprove any change to group rating factors that is
2879	2879	discriminatory or not actuarially sound.
2880	2880	The proposed law sets forth criteria that, if met, would require the Commissioner to
2881	2881	presumptively disapprove a carrier’s rate, including if the aggregate medical loss ratio for all
2882	2882	dental benefit plans offered by a carrier is less than 83 percent. 56
2883	2883	The proposed law would establish procedures to be followed if a proposed rate is
2884	2884	presumptively disapproved or if the Commissioner disapproves a rate.
2885	2885	The proposed law would require the Division to hold a hearing if a carrier reports a risk-
2886	2886	based capital ratio on a combined entity basis that exceeds 700 percent in its annual report.
2887	2887	The proposed law would require the Commissioner to promulgate regulations consistent
2888	2888	with its provisions by October 1, 2023. The proposed law would apply to all dental benefit plans
2889	2889	issued, made effective, delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2024.
2890	2890
2891	2891	YES NO BLANK TOTAL
2892	2892
2893	2893	County of Barnstable 78,347 36,425 3,961 118,733
2894	2894	County of Berkshire 36,611 10,586 2,445 49,642
2895	2895	County of Bristol 115,546 61,001 8,988 185,535
2896	2896	County of Dukes County 7,119 1,776 512 9,407
2897	2897	County of Essex 196,785 80,138 12,468 289,391
2898	2898	County of Franklin 23,782 6,965 1,223 31,970
2899	2899	County of Hampden 83,357 49,461 6,885 139,703
2900	2900	County of Hampshire 48,408 14,564 2,357 65,329
2901	2901	County of Middlesex 443,247 143,806 25,172 612,225
2902	2902	County of Nantucket 3,163 1,299 493 4,955
2903	2903	County of Norfolk 198,664 77,281 11,974 287,919
2904	2904	County of Plymouth 140,042 68,427 8,239 216,708
2905	2905	County of Suffolk 150,307 39,759 14,121 204,187
2906	2906	County of Worcester 195,028 90,215 10,514 295,757
2907	2907
2908	2908	TOTAL 1,720,406 681,703 109,352 2,511,461 57
2909	2909	QUESTION 3
2910	2910	LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
2911	2911
2912	2912	Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or
2913	2913	the House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2022?
2914	2914
2915	2915	SUMMARY
2916	2916	This proposed law would increase the statewide limits on the combined number of
2917	2917	licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption (including licenses for
2918	2918	“all alcoholic beverages” and for “wines and malt beverages”) that any one retailer could own or
2919	2919	control: from 9 to 12 licenses in 2023; to 15 licenses in 2027; and to 18 licenses in 2031.
2920	2920	Beginning in 2023, the proposed law would set a maximum number of “all alcoholic
2921	2921	beverages” licenses that any one retailer could own or control at 7 licenses unless a retailer
2922	2922	currently holds more than 7 such licenses.
2923	2923	The proposed law would require retailers to conduct the sale of alcoholic beverages for
2924	2924	off-premises consumption through face-to-face transactions and would prohibit automated or
2925	2925	self-checkout sales of alcoholic beverages by such retailers.
2926	2926	The proposed law would alter the calculation of the fine that the Alcoholic Beverages
2927	2927	Control Commission may accept in lieu of suspending any license issued under the State Liquor
2928	2928	Control Act. The proposed law would modify the formula for calculating such fee from being
2929	2929	based on the gross profits on the sale of alcoholic beverages to being based on the gross profits
2930	2930	on all retail sales.
2931	2931	The proposed law would also add out-of-state motor vehicle licenses to the list of the
2932	2932	forms of identification that any holder of a license issued under the State Liquor Control Act, or
2933	2933	their agent or employee, may choose to reasonably rely on for proof of a person’s identity and
2934	2934	age.
2935	2935
2936	2936	YES NO BLANK TOTAL
2937	2937
2938	2938	County of Barnstable 48,596 64,955 5,182 118,733
2939	2939	County of Berkshire 21,647 25,094 2,901 49,642
2940	2940	County of Bristol 68,532 106,844 10,159 185,535
2941	2941	County of Dukes County 3,972 4,719 716 9,407
2942	2942	County of Essex 120,483 155,191 13,717 289,391
2943	2943	County of Franklin 14,687 15,403 1,880 31,970
2944	2944	County of Hampden 47,675 86,597 5,431 139,703
2945	2945	County of Hampshire 28,835 32,726 3,768 65,329
2946	2946	County of Middlesex 282,997 295,601 33,627 612,225
2947	2947	County of Nantucket 1,612 2,823 520 4,955
2948	2948	County of Norfolk 123,885 149,005 15,029 287,919
2949	2949	County of Plymouth 83,312 123,333 10,063 216,708
2950	2950	County of Suffolk 102,196 90,181 11,810 204,187
2951	2951	County of Worcester 122,332 162,500 10,925 295,757
2952	2952
2953	2953	TOTAL 1,070,761 1,314,972 125,728 2,511,461 58
2954	2954	QUESTION 4
2955	2955	REFERENDUM ON AN EXISTING LAW
2956	2956
2957	2957	Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of
2958	2958	Representatives and the Senate on May 26, 2022?
2959	2959
2960	2960	SUMMARY
2961	2961	This law allows Massachusetts residents who cannot provide proof of lawful presence in
2962	2962	the United States to obtain a standard driver’s license or learner’s permit if they meet all the
2963	2963	other qualifications for a standard license or learner’s permit, including a road test and insurance,
2964	2964	and provide proof of their identity, date of birth, and residency. The law provides that, when
2965	2965	processing an application for such a license or learner’s permit or motor vehicle registration, the
2966	2966	registrar of motor vehicles may not ask about or create a record of the citizenship or immigration
2967	2967	status of the applicant, except as otherwise required by law. This law does not allow people who
2968	2968	cannot provide proof of lawful presence in the United States to obtain a REAL ID.
2969	2969	To prove identity and date of birth, the law requires an applicant to present at least two
2970	2970	documents, one from each of the following categories: (1) a valid unexpired foreign passport or a
2971	2971	valid unexpired Consular Identification document; and (2) a valid unexpired driver’s license
2972	2972	from any United States state or territory, an original or certified copy of a birth certificate, a valid
2973	2973	unexpired foreign national identification card, a valid unexpired foreign driver’s license, or a
2974	2974	marriage certificate or divorce decree issued by any state or territory of the United States. One of
2975	2975	the documents presented by an applicant must include a photograph and one must include a date
2976	2976	of birth. Any documents not in English must be accompanied by a certified translation. The
2977	2977	registrar may review any documents issued by another country to determine whether they may be
2978	2978	used as proof of identity or date of birth.
2979	2979	The law requires that applicants for a driver’s license or learner’s permit shall attest,
2980	2980	under the pains and penalties of perjury, that their license has not been suspended or revoked in
2981	2981	any other state, country, or jurisdiction.
2982	2982
2983	2983	The law specifies that information provided by or relating to any applicant or license-
2984	2984	holder will not be a public record and shall not be disclosed, except as required by federal law or
2985	2985	as authorized by Attorney General regulations, and except for purposes of motor vehicle
2986	2986	insurance.
2987	2987	The law directs the registrar of motor vehicles to make regulations regarding the
2988	2988	documents required of United States citizens and others who provide proof of lawful presence
2989	2989	with their license application.
2990	2990	The law also requires the registrar and the Secretary of the Commonwealth to establish
2991	2991	procedures and regulations to ensure that an applicant for a standard driver’s license or learner’s
2992	2992	permit who does not provide proof of lawful presence will not be automatically registered to
2993	2993	vote.
2994	2994	The law takes effect on July 1, 2023.
2995	2995
2996	2996
2997	2997
2998	2998
2999	2999	59
3000	3000	YES NO BLANK TOTAL
3001	3001
3002	3002	County of Barnstable 56,711 58,531 3,491 118,733
3003	3003	County of Berkshire 29,729 17,878 2,035 49,642
3004	3004	County of Bristol 76,759 100,246 8,530 185,535
3005	3005	County of Dukes County 6,007 3,011 389 9,407
3006	3006	County of Essex 142,338 134,297 12,756 289,391
3007	3007	County of Franklin 19,451 11,433 1,086 31,970
3008	3008	County of Hampden 57,794 76,154 5,755 139,703
3009	3009	County of Hampshire 40,882 22,500 1,947 65,329
3010	3010	County of Middlesex 362,419 228,076 21,730 612,225
3011	3011	County of Nantucket 2,561 1,978 416 4,955
3012	3012	County of Norfolk 149,104 127,509 11,306 287,919
3013	3013	County of Plymouth 90,860 118,248 7,600 216,708
3014	3014	County of Suffolk 131,184 58,505 14,498 204,187
3015	3015	County of Worcester 134,161 152,020 9,576 295,757
3016	3016
3017	3017	TOTAL 1,299,960 1,110,386 101,115 2,511,461 60
3018	3018	QUESTION 5 OR 6
3019	3019	THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
3020	3020
3021	3021	Shall the representative for this district be instructed to vote for legislation to create a
3022	3022	single payer system of universal health care that provides all Massachusetts residents with
3023	3023	comprehensive health care coverage including the freedom to choose doctors and other health
3024	3024	care professionals, facilities, and services, and eliminates the role of insurance companies in
3025	3025	health care by creating an insurance trust fund that is publicly administered?
3026	3026
3027	3027	YES NO BLANK TOTAL
3028	3028	In the 2
3029	3029	nd
3030	3030	Berkshire District 9,306 3,103 1,825 14,234
3031	3031	In the 1
3032	3032	st
3033	3033	Essex District 11,958 7,168 3,137 22,263
3034	3034	In the 2
3035	3035	nd
3036	3036	Franklin District 9,367 5,383 1,536 16,286
3037	3037	In the 6
3038	3038	th
3039	3039	Hampden District 6,418 5,205 1,214 12,837
3040	3040	In the 7
3041	3041	th
3042	3042	Hampden District 9,859 6,820 1,939 18,618
3043	3043	In the 8
3044	3044	th
3045	3045	Hampden District 6,768 4,895 1,726 13,389
3046	3046	In the 12
3047	3047	th
3048	3048	Hampden District 7,694 6,407 2,884 16,985
3049	3049	In the 4
3050	3050	th
3051	3051	Middlesex District 7,531 4,408 2,014 13,953
3052	3052	In the 14
3053	3053	th
3054	3054	Middlesex District 11,700 6,553 2,536 20,789
3055	3055	In the 23
3056	3056	rd
3057	3057	Middlesex District 13,665 4,851 2,327 20,843
3058	3058	In the 25
3059	3059	th
3060	3060	Middlesex District 9,796 1,715 1,460 12,971
3061	3061	In the 33
3062	3062	rd
3063	3063	Middlesex District 5,926 2,226 1,908 10,060
3064	3064	In the 34
3065	3065	th
3066	3066	Middlesex District 10,099 2,465 1,808 14,372
3067	3067	In the 35
3068	3068	th
3069	3069	Middlesex District 8,105 3,523 2,203 13,831
3070	3070	In the 3
3071	3071	rd
3072	3072	Norfolk District 7,003 4,511 2,202 13,716
3073	3073	In the 3
3074	3074	rd
3075	3075	Plymouth District 11,052 8,460 2,711 22,223
3076	3076	In the 12
3077	3077	th
3078	3078	Suffolk District 8,330 2,452 2,301 13,083
3079	3079	In the 13
3080	3080	th
3081	3081	Suffolk District 6,450 3,031 2,335 11,816
3082	3082	In the 15
3083	3083	th
3084	3084	Suffolk District 11,401 1,619 2,303 15,323
3085	3085	In the 12
3086	3086	th
3087	3087	Worcester District 9,202 7,333 2,328 18,863
3088	3088
3089	3089	TOTAL 181,630 92,128 42,697 316,455
3090	3090
3091	3091
3092	3092
3093	3093
3094	3094
3095	3095
3096	3096
3097	3097
3098	3098
3099	3099
3100	3100	61
3101	3101	QUESTION 5, 6, OR 7
3102	3102	THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
3103	3103
3104	3104	Shall the representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of changes to the
3105	3105	applicable House of Representative rules to make each Legislator’s vote in that body’s
3106	3106	Legislative committees publicly available on the Legislature’s website?
3107	3107
3108	3108	YES NO BLANK TOTAL
3109	3109	In the 4
3110	3110	th
3111	3111	Barnstable District 18,166 3,283 3,283 24,732
3112	3112	In the 2
3113	3113	nd
3114	3114	Berkshire District 10,588 1,701 1,945 14,234
3115	3115	In the 1
3116	3116	st
3117	3117	Essex District 16,108 3,069 3,086 22,263
3118	3118	In the 8
3119	3119	th
3120	3120	Essex District 13,987 2,174 3,166 19,327
3121	3121	In the 2
3122	3122	nd
3123	3123	Franklin District 11,623 2,977 1,686 16,286
3124	3124	In the 8
3125	3125	th
3126	3126	Hampden District 8,673 2,947 1,769 13,389
3127	3127	In the 12
3128	3128	th
3129	3129	Hampden District 10,728 2,953 3,304 16,985
3130	3130	In the 4
3131	3131	th
3132	3132	Middlesex District 9,860 2,047 2,046 13,953
3133	3133	In the 14
3134	3134	th
3135	3135	Middlesex District 16,247 2,098 2,444 20,789
3136	3136	In the 25
3137	3137	th
3138	3138	Middlesex District 10,854 663 1,454 12,971
3139	3139	In the 33
3140	3140	rd
3141	3141	Middlesex District 6,469 1,443 2,148 10,060
3142	3142	In the 34
3143	3143	th
3144	3144	Middlesex District 11,165 1,358 1,849 14,372
3145	3145	In the 35
3146	3146	th
3147	3147	Middlesex District 9,443 2,060 2,328 13,831
3148	3148	In the 3
3149	3149	rd
3150	3150	Norfolk District 8,853 2,499 2,364 13,716
3151	3151	In the 3
3152	3152	rd
3153	3153	Plymouth District 16,725 2,789 2,709 22,223
3154	3154	In the 12
3155	3155	th
3156	3156	Suffolk District 8,448 1,754 2,881 13,083
3157	3157	In the 13
3158	3158	th
3159	3159	Suffolk District 7,214 1,764 2,838 11,816
3160	3160	In the 15
3161	3161	th
3162	3162	Suffolk District 11,715 812 2,796 15,323
3163	3163	In the 12
3164	3164	th
3165	3165	Worcester District 13,234 3,090 2,539 18,863
3166	3166	In the 19
3167	3167	th
3168	3168	Worcester District 13,300 2,156 2,182 17,638
3169	3169
3170	3170	TOTAL 233,400 43,637 48,817 325,854
3171	3171
3172	3172
3173	3173
3174	3174
3175	3175
3176	3176
3177	3177
3178	3178
3179	3179
3180	3180
3181	3181
3182	3182
3183	3183	62
3184	3184	QUESTION 5 OR 6
3185	3185	THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
3186	3186
3187	3187	Shall the representative from this district be instructed to introduce and vote for
3188	3188	legislation that puts a fee on the carbon content of fossil fuels to compensate for their
3189	3189	environmental damage and returns most of the proceeds in equitable ways to individuals as a
3190	3190	cash-back dividend?
3191	3191
3192	3192	YES NO BLANK TOTAL
3193	3193
3194	3194	In the 1
3195	3195	st
3196	3196	Franklin District 10,662 6,892 2,150 19,704
3197	3197	In the 1
3198	3198	st
3199	3199	Hampshire District 12,987 5,578 2,259 20,824
3200	3200	In the 5
3201	3201	th
3202	3202	Worcester District 5,851 10,769 1,954 18,574
3203	3203
3204	3204	TOTAL 29,500 23,239 6,363 59,102
3205	3205
3206	3206
3207	3207
3208	3208
3209	3209	QUESTION 5
3210	3210	THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
3211	3211
3212	3212	Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of
3213	3213	legislation that would prohibit any public pension fund, college, or university in Massachusetts
3214	3214	from directly or indirectly investing its funds, including, but not limited to, the holdings of stock,
3215	3215	security, equity, asset or other obligation of a corporation or company who conducts exploration
3216	3216	for, extraction of, or sales of fossil fuel assets?
3217	3217
3218	3218	YES NO BLANK TOTAL
3219	3219
3220	3220	In the 4
3221	3221	th
3222	3222	Barnstable 10,325 10,611 3,796 24,732
3223	3223
3224	3224	TOTAL 10,325 10,611 3,796 24,732
3225	3225
3226	3226
3227	3227
3228	3228
3229	3229
3230	3230	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
3231	3231	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
3232	3232
3233	3233
3234	3234	_____________________ _________
3235	3235
3236	3236
3237	3237	SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE TO EXAMINE THE
3238	3238	RETURNS OF VOTES FOR CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS
3239	3239
3240	3240
3241	3241
3242	3242
3243	3243	JOINT RECORD APPENDIX FOR
3244	3244	LEONARD MIRRA AND KRISTIN KASSNER
3245	3245
3246	3246
3247	3247
3248	3248
3249	3249
3250	3250
3251	3251
3252	3252	Counsel for Leonard Mirra: Counsel for Kristin Kassner:
3253	3253	Michael J. Sullivan, Esq. Gerald A. McDonough, Esq.
3254	3254	J. Christopher Amrhein, Esq. 13 Hollis Street
3255	3255	Ashcroft Law Firm, LLC Cambridge, MA 01240
3256	3256	200 State Street, 7th Floor (617) 529-1527
3257	3257	Boston, MA 02109 gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
3258	3258	(617) 573-9400
3259	3259	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
3260	3260	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
3261	3261
3262	3262
3263	3263
3264	3264	Dated: January 11, 2023
3265	3265
3266	3266
3267	3267	i
3268	3268
3269	3269	TABLE OF CONTENTS
3270	3270
3271	3271
3272	3272	Record Page
3273	3273
3274	3274
3275	3275	Superior Court Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 001
3276	3276
3277	3277	Complaint and Exhibits (12/21/2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 004
3278	3278
3279	3279	Emergency Motion for Expedited and Limited and De Novo Review of
3280	3280	Two Challenged Ballots, and Preliminary Injunction Staying Swearing-In
3281	3281	(12/23/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 046
3282	3282
3283	3283	Memorandum in Support of Emergency Motion for Expedited and
3284	3284	Limited De Novo Review of Two Challenged Ballots, and Preliminary
3285	3285	Injunction Staying Swearing-In (12/23/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 049
3286	3286
3287	3287	Third Party Kristin Kassner’s Motion to Dismiss (12/27/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . 055
3288	3288
3289	3289	Memorandum in Support of Kristin Kassner’s Motion to Dismiss
3290	3290	(12/27/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 058
3291	3291
3292	3292	Response by the Secretary of the Commonwealth to Plaintiff’s Emergency
3293	3293	Motion for Preliminary Injunction (12/28/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 068
3294	3294
3295	3295	Opposition to Intervener’s Motion to Dismiss (12/28/2022). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 073
3296	3296
3297	3297	Municipal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for
3298	3298	Preliminary Injunction (12/29/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 081
3299	3299
3300	3300	Defendant Kristin Kassner’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a
3301	3301	Preliminary Injunction (12/29/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 097
3302	3302
3303	3303	Plaintiff’s Omnibus Reply to Oppositions to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion
3304	3304	for Expedited and Limited De Novo Review and Preliminary Injunction
3305	3305	(12/29/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
3306	3306
3307	3307
3308	3308	ii
3309	3309
3310	3310
3311	3311	Memorandum of Decision and Order on: (1) Emergency Motion for
3312	3312	Expedited and Limited and De Novo Review of Two Challenged Ballots,
3313	3313	and Preliminary Injunction Staying Swearing-In; and (2) Third Party
3314	3314	Kristin Kassner’s Motion to Dismiss (12/29/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3315	3315
3316	3316	Judgment on Motion to Dismiss (12/30/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
3317	3317
3318	3318	Notice of Appeal (12/30/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3319	3319
3320	3320	Plaintiff-Petitioner Leonard Mirra’s Request for Injunctive Relief Pursuant
3321	3321	to Mass. R. App. P. 6 (12/30/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3322	3322
3323	3323	Plaintiff-Petitioner Leonard Mirra’s Memorandum in Support of Request for
3324	3324	Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Mass. R. App. P. 6 (12/30/2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
3325	3325
3326	3326	Defendant-Respondent Kristin Kassner’s Opposition to Plaintiff-
3327	3327	Petitioner’s Request for Injunctive Relief (1/3/2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
3328	3328
3329	3329	Plaintiff-Petitioner Leonard Mirra’s Supplemental Submission in Support
3330	3330	of Request for Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Mass. R. App. P. 6 (1/3/2023) . . . 163
3331	3331
3332	3332	Defendant-Respondent Kristin Kassner’s Reply to Plaintiff-Petitioner’s
3333	3333	“Status Report” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
3334	3334
3335	3335	Appeals Court Order (1/3/2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3336	3336
3337	3337	Plaintiff-Petitioner Leonard Mirra’s Emergency Petition for Injunctive Relief
3338	3338	Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 211, § 3 (without Exhibits)
3339	3339	(1/3/2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3340	3340
3341	3341	Plaintiff-Respondent Kristin Kassner’s Initial Response to Plaintiff-
3342	3342	Petitioner’s Emergency Petition for Injunctive Relief (1/4/2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
3343	3343
3344	3344	Single Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court Judgment (1/4/2023) . . . . . . . . . . 187
3345	3345	001 ------- - ------------
3346	3346	2277CV01243 Leonard Mirra Also Known As Lenny Mirra vs. Town of Georgetown
3347	3347	Registrars
3348	3348	of Voters et al
3349	3349	• CaseType:
3350	3350	• Actions Involving the State/Municipality
3351	3351	•
3352	3352	Case Status:
3353	3353	• Open
3354	3354	• File Date
3355	3355	• 1
3356	3356	2/21/2022
3357	3357	•
3358	3358	DCM Track:
3359	3359	•
3360	3360	A-Average
3361	3361	• Initiating Action:
3362	3362	•
3363	3363	Equity Action involving the Commonwealth, Municipality, MBTA, etc.
3364	3364	• Status Date:
3365	3365	• 12/21/
3366	3366	2022
3367	3367	• Case Judge:
3368	3368	• Ne
3369	3369	xt Event:
3370	3370	All Information Party Event Tickler Docket ·Dispo sition }
3371	3371	Docket Information
3372	3372	Docket Text File Image
3373	3373	Ref Avail.
3374	3374	Nbr.
3375	3375	12/21/2022 C
3376	3376	omplaint electronically filed.
3377	3377	12/21/2022 Civil action cover
3378	3378	sheet filed.
3379	3379	12/22/
3380	3380	2022 Case assigned to:
3381	3381	DCM Track A-Average was added on 12/22/2022
3382	3382	12/22/2022 Attorney
3383	3383	appearance electronically filed.
3384	3384	Applies
3385	3385	To: Sullivan, Esq., Michael J (Attorney) on behalf of Leonard Mirra Also Known As Lenny Mirra (Plaintiff)
3386	3386	12/23/2022 Attorney appearance
3387	3387	On this date Gerald A McDonough, Esq. added for Other interested party Kristin Kassner
3388	3388	2
3389	3389	3
3390	3390	12/23/2022 Other In
3391	3391	terested Party Kristin Kassner's EMERGENCY Motion to 4
3392	3392	intervene
3393	3393	12/23/2022 Attorney appearance 5
3394	3394	On this date Adam Homstine, Esq. added for Defendant William Francis Galvin In his/her capacity As the Secret ary of the
3395	3395	Commonwealth of Massachusetts
3396	3396	12/23/2022 Attorney
3397	3397	appearance
3398	3398	On this date Anne Lisa Sterman, Esq. added for Defendant William Francis Galvin In his/her capacity As the Secretary of
3399	3399	the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
3400	3400	12/23/2022 Plaintiff L
3401	3401	eonard Mirra Also Known As Lenny Mirra's EMERGENCY Motion for
3402	3402	Expedited And Limited De Novo Review Of Two Challenged Ballots, And Preliminary Injunction Staying Swearing-In
3403	3403	6
3404	3404	12/23/2022 Leonard Mirra Also Known As Lenny Mirra's Memorandum in support of Emergency Motion For Ex pedited And Limited De 6.1
3405	3405	Novo Review Of Two Challenged Ballots, And Preliminary Injunction Staying Swearing-In
3406	3406	12/27/2022 E
3407	3407	ndorsement on Motion to Intervene (Emergency Motion) (#4.0): A LLOWED
3408	3408	without objection.
3409	3409	Judge: Drechsler, Hon.
3410	3410	Thomas
3411	3411	12/27/2022 Event Re sult:: Motion Hearing schedul ed on:
3412	3412	12/27/
3413	3413	2022 12:00 PM
3414	3414	Has been: Not Held F or the following reason: Transferred to another session
3415	3415	Ho
3416	3416	n. Thomas Drechsler, Presiding
3417	3417	Staff:
3418	3418	Lisa Partelow, Assistant
3419	3419	Clerk
3420	3420	12/27/2022 Docket Note: Expecting motion to be filed by Defendant-Intervenor Kassner. Opposition, if any, to be filed no later than
3421	3421	1
3422	3422	2:30pm on 12/28/22. Defendant-Intervenor Kassner may file an opposition to plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction
3423	3423	no
3424	3424	later than 11:00am on 12/29/22.
3425	3425	12/27/2022 Attorney appearance
3426	3426	On this date Christina Marshall, Esq. added for Defendant Town of Ipswich Registrars of Voters
3427	3427	12/27/2022 Attorney appearance
3428	3428	On this date George A Hall, Jr., Es q. added for Defendant Town of Ipswich Registrars of Voters
3429	3429	7
3430	3430	lmagg
3431	3431	lmagg_
3432	3432	lmagg
3433	3433	Ima~
3434	3434	lmagg 002 Docket Text
3435	3435	12/27/2022 Attorney appearance
3436	3436	On this date Christina Marshall, Esq. added for Defendant Town Clerk for the Town of Ipswich
3437	3437	12/27/2022 Attorney appearance
3438	3438	On this date George A Hall, Jr., Esq. added
3439	3439	for Defendant Town Clerk for the Town of Ipswich
3440	3440	12/27/2022 Defendant-Intervenor Kristin Kassner's Motion to dismiss
3441	3441	12/27/2022 Defendant-Intervenor Kristin Kassner's Submission
3442	3442	of
3443	3443	memorandum in support of motion to dismiss.
3444	3444	12/27/2022 Event Result:: Motion Hearing scheduled on:
3445	3445	12/27/2022 12:00 PM
3446	3446	Has been: Held via Video/Teleconference
3447	3447	Comments: FTR
3448	3448	"H"
3449	3449	Hon. Thomas Drechsler, Presiding
3450	3450	Staff:
3451	3451	Jose Mejia, Assistant Clerk Magistrate
3452	3452	12/27/2022 Attorney appearance
3453	3453	On this
3454	3454	date Devan C Braun, Esq. added for Defendant Town of Georgetown Registrars of Voters
3455	3455	12/27/2022 Attorney appearance
3456	3456	On this
3457	3457	date Gregg J Corbo, Esq. added for Defendant Town of Georgetown Registrars of Voters
3458	3458	12/27/2022 Attorney appearance
3459	3459	On this
3460	3460	date Lauren Feldman Goldberg, Esq. added for Defendant Town of Georgetown Registrars of Voters
3461	3461	File Image
3462	3462	Ref Avail.
3463	3463	Nbr.
3464	3464	7
3465	3465	8
3466	3466	8.1 lmagg
3467	3467	9
3468	3468	9
3469	3469	9
3470	3470	12/28/2022 Defendant William Francis Galvin In his/ her capacity As the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts's 10 lmagg
3471	3471	Response to
3472	3472	plaintiffs emergency motion for expedited and limited de novo review of two challenged ballots and preliminary injunction
3473	3473	staying swearing-in,
3474	3474	and to intervenor's motion to dismiss.
3475	3475	12/28/2022 ORDER: ORDER REGARDING ELECTION DOCUMENTS
3476	3476	11
3477	3477	Defendants Town of Georgetown Registrars of Voters, Town of Ipswich Registrars of Voters, Town Clerk of the Town of
3478	3478	Ipswich, Town of Rowley Registrar of Voters, and Town Clerk for the Town of Rowley (the "Municipal Defendants"), are
3479	3479	hereby ORDERED
3480	3480	to provide the following documents relative to the November 8, 2022 election for the Second Essex
3481	3481	District State Representative and subsequent district-wide recounts held in their respective Towns,
3482	3482	to the Essex County
3483	3483	Superior Court Clerk's Office located
3484	3484	at 56 Federal Street in Salem, Massachusetts 01970, by 10:00am on Thursday,
3485	3485	December 29, 2022:
3486	3486	1. All protested ballots sealed and segregated
3487	3487	by the registrars pursuant to G.L. c. 54, § 135, as set forth in the
3488	3488	Plaintiffs Complaint.
3489	3489	The Municipal Defendants shall notify counsel
3490	3490	for Leonard Mirra and Kristin Kassner of the time and date, respectively,
3491	3491	that they will be retrieving said protested ballot materials from their respective vaults. The candidates may,
3492	3492	at their sole
3493	3493	discretion, send a representative
3494	3494	of their choosing to observe the retrieval of the protested ballot materials in each town;
3495	3495	in no
3496	3496	event however shall the transfer of ballot materials to this Court be delayed to address the candidates" inability to
3497	3497	be present at the respective noticed date and time and such absence shall not affect or otherwise delay the retrieval of
3498	3498	the protested ballot materials.
3499	3499	As ordered by the Court at the December
3500	3500	27, 2022 scheduling hearing, only the protested ballots shall be reviewed by the
3501	3501	Court in connection with the Plaintiff's Motion
3502	3502	for Preliminary Injunction. It is hereby recognized, however, that one or
3503	3503	more of the Municipal Defendants may have sealed such protested ballots with other sealed election materials, which
3504	3504	materials could include and not be limited
3505	3505	to voted and unchallenged ballots and additional materials requested at the
3506	3506	recounts to
3507	3507	be marked for identification. To protect the integrity of the election and the chain of custody, the Municipal
3508	3508	Defendants shall
3509	3509	not break any seals from the materials sealed at the recount and shall instead deliver to this Court the
3510	3510	sealed physical container in which the protested ballot materials were segregated in accord with G.L. c. 54, § 135.
3511	3511	To the extent that any protested ballots contain identifying information, to preserve the secrecy of any named individual 's
3512	3512	vote, such information will be redacted by this Court before making photocopies of the relevant ballots.
3513	3513	Further,
3514	3514	to ensure that the Court reviews any such protested ballots in the context of the objections made, copies shall be
3515	3515	made
3516	3516	of both sides of each ballot before said protested ballots are resealed by the Court.
3517	3517	The Municipal Defendants are
3518	3518	to coordinate with First Assistant Cle rk Carlotta Patten regarding any logistical matters
3519	3519	pertaining
3520	3520	to the transportation and receipt of the election documents to be so provided to the Court.
3521	3521	12/28/2022 Opposition
3522	3522	to Intervenor's motion to dismiss filed by Leonard Mirra Also Known As Lenny Mirra 12
3523	3523	12/28/2022 ORDER: ORDER 13
3524	3524	The court hereby ORDERS the Secretary
3525	3525	of the Commonwealth and Kristin Kassner to produce a copy of the December
3526	3526	14, 2022 signed certification referenced on page three of the Memorandum in Support of Kristen Kassner's Motion to
3527	3527	Dismiss (Paper
3528	3528	No 8.1) by the close of business today, December 28, 2022.
3529	3529	Judge: Drechsler,
3530	3530	Hon. Thomas
3531	3531	12/28/20
3532	3532	22 Defendant-Intervenor Kristin Kassner's Submission of
3533	3533	Return of Votes
3534	3534	12/28/2022 Defendant-Intervenor Kristin Kassner's Submission
3535	3535	of
3536	3536	Certification
3537	3537	12/28/2022 Defendant William Francis Galvin In his/her capacity
3538	3538	As the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts's
3539	3539	Response
3540	3540	to
3541	3541	Court Order of December 28, 2022
3542	3542	12/29/2022 Opposition
3543	3543	to Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Town of Georgetown Registrars of Voters,
3544	3544	Town
3545	3545	of Ipswich Registrars of Voters, Town Clerk for the Town of Ipswich, Town of Rowley Registrars of Voters, Town
3546	3546	Clerk for the Town
3547	3547	of Rowley
3548	3548	12/29/2022 Attorney appearance
3549	3549	On this date Yael Magen, Esq. added
3550	3550	for Defendant Town of Rowley Registrars of Voters
3551	3551	14
3552	3552	15
3553	3553	16
3554	3554	17
3555	3555	lmagg
3556	3556	lmagg
3557	3557	lmagg
3558	3558	lmagg
3559	3559	lma
3560	3560	gg
3561	3561	lmagg
3562	3562	lmagg 003 Docket
3563	3563	Date
3564	3564	Docket Text
3565	3565	12/29/2022 Attorney appearance
3566	3566	On this date Yael Magen, Esq. added for Defendant Town Clerk for the Town
3567	3567	of Rowley
3568	3568	12/29/2022 Opposition
3569	3569	to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Kristin Kassner
3570	3570	12/29/2022 Reply/Sur-reply
3571	3571	to Plaintiff's Emergency Motion
3572	3572	for Expedited and Limited De Novo Review and Preliminary Injunction
3573	3573	12/29/2022 MEMORANDUM
3574	3574	& ORDER:
3575	3575	MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON: (1) PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED AND
3576	3576	LIMITED DE NOVO REVIEW
3577	3577	OF TWO CHALLENGED BALLOTS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STAYING
3578	3578	SWEARING-IN; AND (2) THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT KRISTIN KASSNER'S MOTION
3579	3579	TO DISMISS
3580	3580	For the foregoing reasons,
3581	3581	it is hereby ORDERED:
3582	3582	1. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Expedited and Limited De Novo Review of Two Challenged Ballots, and Preliminary
3583	3583	Injunction Staying Swearing-in (Paper No. 6)
3584	3584	is DENIED.
3585	3585	2. Third Party Defendant Kristin Kassner's Motion lo Dismiss (Paper No. 8) is ALLOWED.
3586	3586	(See Paper No. 20 for full text
3587	3587	of Memorandum and Order)
3588	3588	Judge: Drechsler, Hon. Thomas
3589	3589	12/29/2022 Endorsement on Motion for Expedited and Limited
3590	3590	De Novo Review of Two Challenged Ballots, and Preliminary Injunction
3591	3591	Staying Swearing-In (#6.0): DENIED
3592	3592	See Memo and Order
3593	3593	at Paper No. 20. (Attest: ATMitchell, Asst. Clerk)
3594	3594	12/29/2022 Endorsement on Motion to Dismiss (#8.0): ALLOWED
3595	3595	See Memo and Order
3596	3596	at Paper No. 20. (Attest: ATMitchell, Asst. Clerk)
3597	3597	12/29/2022 Docket Note: Paper No. 20 emailed to counsel
3598	3598	at 3:30 p.m.
3599	3599	12/30/2022 JUDGMENT on Defendants, Kristin Kassner 12(b) motion to dismiss against Plaintiff(s) Leonard Mirra Also Known As
3600	3600	Lenny Mirra.
3601	3601	It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
3602	3602	That the complaint
3603	3603	of the plaintiff, Leonard Mirra, against all of the defendants be and hereby is DISMISSED.
3604	3604	12/30/2022 Docket Note: Paper No.
3605	3605	21 emailed to counsel at 9:05 a.m.
3606	3606	12/30/2022 Notice
3607	3607	of appeal filed.
3608	3608	Applies
3609	3609	To: Leonard Mirra Also Known As Lenny Mirra (Plaintiff) (filed 12/29/2022)
3610	3610	12/30/2022 Notice
3611	3611	of appeal filed.
3612	3612	Applies
3613	3613	To: Sullivan, Esq., Michael J (Attorney) on behalf of Leonard Mirra Also Known As Lenny Mirra (Plaintiff)
3614	3614	12/30/2022 Copy
3615	3615	of Notice of Appeal sent to parties/counsel of record
3616	3616	File
3617	3617	Ref
3618	3618	Nbr.
3619	3619	18
3620	3620	19
3621	3621	20
3622	3622	21
3623	3623	22
3624	3624	23
3625	3625	24
3626	3626	01/04/2023 Notice of docket entry received from Appeals Court 25
3627	3627	ORDER: The plaintiff has moved pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 6(a) for an injunction pending appeal. I have reviewed the
3628	3628	papers filed, including the December 14, 2022 certification
3629	3629	of the election results by Governor Charles D. Baker and the
3630	3630	December 28, 2022 response
3631	3631	by Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin to the plaintiff's motion. I have also
3632	3632	reviewed the December 29, 2022 order
3633	3633	of the Superior Court (Drechsler, J.), which denied the plaintiff's emergency
3634	3634	motion for expedited and limited
3635	3635	de novo review of two challenged ballots and preliminary injunction staying swearing in,
3636	3636	and allowed the motion
3637	3637	to dismiss of third-party defendant Kristin Kassn er. In that order, the Superior Court judge
3638	3638	concluded that the plaintiff
3639	3639	has not shown a likelihood of success on appeal. I discern no abuse of discretion in the judge's
3640	3640	rulings. See Packaging Indus. Group, Inc.
3641	3641	v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609,615 (1980); Edwin R. Sage Co. v. Foley, 12 Mass.
3642	3642	App. Ct. 20,
3643	3643	25 (1981). See also L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014). Accordingly, the motion is
3644	3644	denied. (Grant, J.). Notice/attest/Drechsler, J.
3645	3645	01/04/2023 Notice
3646	3646	of docket entry received from Supreme Judicial Court 26
3647	3647	JUDGMENT: This matter came before the Court, Cypher, J., on an emergency petition for injunctive relief, pursuant to G.
3648	3648	L. c. 211,
3649	3649	§ 3, filed by Leonard Mirra. The petitioner seeks the extraordinary power of this Court to vacate the order of the
3650	3650	Appeals Court denying an injunction, pending an appeal
3651	3651	of the judgment of the Essex Superior Court. I have reviewed the
3652	3652	petition, exhibits filed
3653	3653	by the petitioner, the response filed by the respondent, Kristin Kassner, the order of the Appeals
3654	3654	Court, and the memorandum and order
3655	3655	of the Essex Superior Court. Upon consideration thereof, it is hereby ORDERED
3656	3656	that the petition be, and the same hereby
3657	3657	is, DENIED without hearing. (Cypher, J.)
3658	3658	Image
3659	3659	Avail.
3660	3660	lmagg
3661	3661	lmagg
3662	3662	lmagg
3663	3663	lmagg
3664	3664	lmagg
3665	3665	lmagg
3666	3666	l
3667	3667	magg
3668	3668	lmagg
3669	3669	lmagg 004 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
3670	3670	Superior Court -Essex
3671	3671	Docket Number
3672	3672	J_
3673	3673	CO:tytMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
3674	3674	ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR
3675	3675	COURT DEPARTMENT
3676	3676	CIVIL ACTION NO.
3677	3677	LEONARD MIRRA
3678	3678	a/k/aLENNY MIRRA,
3679	3679	Plaintiff,
3680	3680	V.
3681	3681	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF
3682	3682	VOTERS,
3683	3683	TOWN-OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
3684	3684	TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN Of IPSWICH,
3685	3685	TOWN OF ROWLEY'.' REGiSTRARS OF VOTERS,
3686	3686	TOWN CLERK FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY,
3687	3687	and
3688	3688	WILLIAM F.
3689	3689	GAL VIN, in his official capacity as
3690	3690	Secretary
3691	3691	of the Coinrn:onwealth of Massachusetts,
3692	3692	Defendants.
3693	3693	COMPLAINT
3694	3694	2Z11~Vof243
3695	3695	PRELIMiNARY STATEMENT
3696	3696	· 1.. This is an action that contests the results of the November 8, 2022, Second Essex
3697	3697	District State Representative election (the "Election"); seeks an expedited review
3698	3698	of the ballots
3699	3699	·.· I
3700	3700	challenged and preserved at the December 2022 district-wide Election recount ("Recount"); a~d, .
3701	3701	inter alia, requests declaratory relief stating that Plaintiff Leomard Mirra a/k/a Lenny Mirra was
3702	3702	the rightful winner
3703	3703	of the Election.
3704	3704	2. The ipitial count showed that 24,155 votes were cast in the Election; ·
3705	3705	i
3706	3706	3. After the initial count, Plaintiff Mirra won the Election by a 10-vote margin.
3707	3707	PlaintiffMirrareceived a total
3708	3708	ofl 1,754 votes. Kristin Kassner, the second-place finisher, received
3709	3709	a total
3710	3710	of 11,744 votes.
3711	3711	1. 005 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM.
3712	3712	Superior Court - Essex
3713	3713	Docket Number
3714	3714	4. The margin of victory after the initial count was ::::0.041 %.
3715	3715	5. Ms. Kassner petitioned for a district-wide recount.
3716	3716	6. The Recount commenced on Monday, December 5, 2022, spanned six (6) towns
3717	3717	and four (4) days, and concluded on Thursday, December 8, 2022.
3718	3718	7. A total of 13 extra ballots were found and counted during the Recount, and no
3719	3719	explanation was provided
3720	3720	as to why the vote c,ount increased by 13:
3721	3721	8. After the Recount, Ms. Kassner purportedly received one (1) vote more than
3722	3722	Plaintiff Mirra, gaining a net
3723	3723	of 11 votes to overcome the 10-vote margin after the initial count.
3724	3724	9. The margin of victoiyafter the Recount narrowed to ::::0.0041 %.
3725	3725	'. 10. The Defendant Registrars and Town Clerks made several critical errors of law to
3726	3726	the detriment
3727	3727	of Plaintiff Mirra and the registered voters that participated in the Election.
3728	3728	11. Judicial review and correction of the unlawful actions, decisions, mistakes, and
3729	3729	inaction by the Defendant Registrars and Town Clerks before and during the Recount will
3730	3730	materially change the outcome
3731	3731	of the Election and show that Plaintiff Mirra won the Election, or
3732	3732	in the alternative (and in the very least), that the Election resulted in a tie and a special election is
3733	3733	required.
3734	3734	PARTIES
3735	3735	12. Plaintiff Leonard Mirra a/k/a Lenny Mirra was a candidate in the Elect~on. Plaintiff
3736	3736	Mirra has served as the State Representative for the Second Essex District since first being elected
3737	3737	in 2012. Plaintiff Mirra resides in Georgetown, MA.
3738	3738	13. Defendant Town of Georgetown Registrars of Voters ("Georgetown Registrars") is
3739	3739	a
3740	3740	?oard formed in accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 51, § 15. The Georgetown Registrars'
3741	3741	responsibilities include accepting and certifying nomination papers; certifying initiative or
3742	3742	2 006 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
3743	3743	Superior Court -Essex
3744	3744	Docket Number
3745	3745	I ••• , ••
3746	3746	referendum petitions~ 9onducting e!ectioris and recounts as necessary in a fair and impartial
3747	3747	manner; maintaining ,accurate lists
3748	3748	of registered voters in the town; maintenance and testing of
3749	3749	voting equipment;. prpcessing absentee voter applications and mail-in voting; processing address
3750	3750	and party changes; tallying election results; and the administration
3751	3751	of voter registration.
3752	3752	14. ·
3753	3753	D_efen?a1tt Town oflpswich Registrars of Voters ("Ipswich Registrars~') is a board
3754	3754	formed
3755	3755	in accordanc~ with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 51, § 15. The Ipswich Registrars' responsibilities
3756	3756	a· : . . ,
3757	3757	include accepting and certifying nomination papers; certifyirig initiative or referendum petitions;
3758	3758	conducting elections,: ~nd recounts as · necessary
3759	3759	in. a fair and impartial manner; maintaining
3760	3760	1l ,l
3761	3761	accurate lists of registered voters in the town; maintenance and testing of voting equtP.,ment;
3762	3762	processing absentee voter applications and mail-in voting; .processing address and party changes;
3763	3763	-tallying election results;
3764	3764	_and the administration of voter registration.
3765	3765	15. Defendant Town Clerk for the Town
3766	3766	of Ipswich ("Ipswich Town Clerk") is
3767	3767	responsible for the administration
3768	3768	of elections and all other voter-related activities in Ipswich,
3769	3769	including (but not limited
3770	3770	to) running election recounts.
3771	3771	:, :
3772	3772	16. Deferidant Town of Rowley Registrars of Voters ("Rowley-Registrars") is a board
3773	3773	fofl)led
3774	3774	in accordanc¢ with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 51, § 15. The Rowley Registrars' responsibilities -
3775	3775	include accepting
3776	3776	an<l certifying nomination papers; certifying initiative or referendum petitions;
3777	3777	. ! ' .
3778	3778	conducting elections and recounts · as necessary in a fair and impartial manner; maintaining
3779	3779	~ccur-ate lists of regis~ered v:oters in the town; maintenance and testing of voting equipment;
3780	3780	processing absentee voter applications and mail-in voting; processing-address and party changes;
3781	3781	', ,i
3782	3782	tallying election results; and the administration of voter registration.
3783	3783	I.
3784	3784	3 007 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
3785	3785	Superior Court -Essex
3786	3786	Docket
3787	3787	Number
3788	3788	17. Defendant Town Clerk for the Town of Rowley ("Rowley Town Clerk") is
3789	3789	responsible for the administration
3790	3790	of elections-and all other voter-related activities in Rowley,
3791	3791	including (but
3792	3792	not limited to) running election recounts.
3793	3793	18. Defendant William Francis Galvin is the Secretary
3794	3794	of the Commonwealth of
3795	3795	Massachusetts ("Secretary Galvin" or "Secretary';), and is being sued in his official capacity. The
3796	3796	Secretary is the chief elections officer of the Commonwealth __ and is responsible for the
3797	3797	administration
3798	3798	of elections.
3799	3799	VENUE AND JURISDICTION
3800	3800	19. Venu~ is properly faid in this Court pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 5, and
3801	3801	Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223, §
3802	3802	1.
3803	3803	20. Plaintiff's requests for relief are appropriately brought in this Court pursuant to
3804	3804	several Massachusetts statutes.
3805	3805	21. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214,
3806	3806	§ 1, confe!s upon this Court "original and concurrent
3807	3807	jurisdiction
3808	3808	9f all cases and matters of equity cognizable under the general principles of equity
3809	3809	jurisprudence."
3810	3810	22. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 56, § 59, states that "the superior department
3811	3811	of the trial court
3812	3812	shall have jurisdiction
3813	3813	of civil actions to enforce the provisions of chapters fifty to fifty,..six,
3814	3814	inclusive, and may award relief formerly available in equity
3815	3815	or by mandamus."
3816	3816	STATEMENT OF FACTS
3817	3817	23. The Election was held on November 8, 2022.
3818	3818	24. Secretary Galvin's office released the initial results
3819	3819	of the Election via email to the
3820	3820	candidates
3821	3821	on November 28, 2022.
3822	3822	4 008 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
3823	3823	Superior Court -Essex
3824	3824	Docket
3825	3825	Number
3826	3826	25. The initial count showed that 24,155 .votes were cast in the Election. See Exhibit A ·
3827	3827	(Recount
3828	3828	Tally Sheet,pr,ovided by the Secretary).
3829	3829	26.
3830	3830	The initial results of the Election Were certified on November 30, 2022.
3831	3831	27.
3832	3832	After '.the_ initial count, Plaintiff Mirra received a total of 11,754 votes. Id;
3833	3833	! '
3834	3834	Ms. Kassner finished·:second, receiving a total of 11,744 votes. Id.
3835	3835	I
3836	3836	II •
3837	3837	28. The reinain~er of the initial results included 11 votes for "All Others" and 646 votes
3838	3838	11 I
3839	3839	called as "Blanks." Id.
3840	3840	29. On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff Mirra received notice from Secretary Galvin's
3841	3841	office that Ms. Kassn~r: filed a petition for a district-wide recount. ·
3842	3842	30. A distri~t-wide
3843	3843	recount-unlike a recount for a specific town precinct(s)-initiates
3844	3844	. I : • .
3845	3845	a recount in all the towns .that make up a specific district and can only be done where the margin
3846	3846	of victory isnot more than o:µe-half of one percent (0.5%) of the votes cast for an office or question.
3847	3847	Mass. Gen.
3848	3848	Laws ch.
3849	3849	1
3850	3850	54, § i35.
3851	3851	I '
3852	3852	31. The Second Essex District is comprised of Georgetown, Hamilt_on, Ipswich,
3853	3853	I,
3854	3854	Newbury, Rowley, and Topsfield.
3855	3855	32.
3856	3856	The Second Essex District can be broken down further by precinct: Georgetown
3857	3857	precincts
3858	3858	1, 2, and 3;1ittamilton precincts 1 and 2; Ipswich precincts 1, 2, 3, \and 4; Newbury
3859	3859	precincts
3860	3860	1 and 2; Rqwley precinct 1; and Topsfield precinct 1. See Ex. A.
3861	3861	• !. i
3862	3862	33. On ·Monday, December 5, 2022, the first town recount took place in,the town of
3863	3863	Georgetown.
3864	3864	I
3865	3865	·'
3866	3866	34. On Tuesday, December 6, 2022, two town recounts took place in the towns of
3867	3867	'
3868	3868	· Hamilton and Newbud,.
3869	3869	I
3870	3870	' I
3871	3871	5 009 Dale Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
3872	3872	Superior Court -Essex
3873	3873	Docket Number
3874	3874	35. On Wednesday, December 7, 2022, two town recounts took place in the towns of
3875	3875	Ipswich and Rowley.
3876	3876	36. On Thursday, December 8, 2022, the final town recount took place in the town
3877	3877	of
3878	3878	Topsfield.
3879	3879	37. The incorrect and unlawful actions, decisions, mistakes, and inaction
3880	3880	by Defendant
3881	3881	Town Clerks and Registrars materially changed the outcome
3882	3882	of the Election to the detriment of
3883	3883	Plaintiff Mirra.
3884	3884	Georgetown Recount
3885	3885	38. The initial Georgetown count included a total of 4~044 votes cast and counted
3886	3886	across three precincts. Ex.
3887	3887	A.
3888	3888	39. The Georgetown Recount included a total of 4,043 votes-a decrease of one {1)
3889	3889	vote from the initially reported vote total.
3890	3890	Id.
3891	3891	40. No explanation was provided as to why the vote count decreased by one (1).
3892	3892	41. Ms. Kassner gained a net total of one (1) vote at the Georgetown Recount. Id.
3893	3893	42. The Georgetown Registrars erred in making a determination on a challenged ballot.
3894	3894	43. The challenged
3895	3895	ballot at issue-from precinct 1, block 28-included a mark in the
3896	3896	oval for Plaintiff Mirra. The oval for Ms. Kassner did not have any mark whatsoever. The ballot
3897	3897	was called as a blank. Counsel for Plaintiff Mirra challenged the call. The Georgetown Registrars
3898	3898	decided that the ballot was a blank.·. Counsel for Plaintiff Mirra further challenged the ballot and .
3899	3899	preserved it for litigation.
3900	3900	44. The voter's intent in the challenged ballot at issue ¥ould be ascertained with
3901	3901	reasonable certainty from an inspection .of said ballot.
3902	3902	6 0010 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
3903	3903	Superior Court -Essex
3904	3904	Docket Number
3905	3905	45. The "cardinal rule" in disputes of this nature is that "if the intent of the voter can
3906	3906	be determined with reasonable certainty from an inspection
3907	3907	of the ballot ... , effect must be given
3908	3908	to that intent and the vote counted."
3909	3909	0 'Brien v. Bd. of Election Comm 'rs of City of Boston, 257
3910	3910	Mass. 332,
3911	3911	338-39 (1926); see also Kane v. Registrars of Voters of Fall River, 328 Mass. 511,518
3912	3912	(1952)
3913	3913	("Ifthe ballot, considered in the light of the character and location of the mark ... , fairly
3914	3914	' '
3915	3915	indicates the voter's intent, the vote should be counted in accordance with that intent.").
3916	3916	46. A voter
3917	3917	is "not to be disenfranchised-for minor irregularities." McCavitt v.
3918	3918	-Registrars of Voters of Brockton, 385 Mass. 833,844 (1982); Kane,328 Mass. at 518 (same); see
3919	3919	' I
3920	3920	also O'Brien, 257 Mass. at 338-39 ("Minor departures from the terms of the statute where there
3921	3921	has been substantial'' compliance with its provisions and where the intent
3922	3922	of the voter can be
3923	3923	ascertained do not invalidate the vote.").
3924	3924	47. The Georgetown Registrars improperly and unlawfully determined the challenged
3925	3925	ballot was a blank.
3926	3926	48. The voter's intent could be reasonably ascertained:
3927	3927	to cast a vote for Plaintiff Mirra.
3928	3928	49. The failure·
3929	3929	of the Georgetown Registrars to call this challenged vote for Plaintiff
3930	3930	Mirra cuts against decades
3931	3931	of well-established Massachusetts law, and in doing so, dis·enfrartchised
3932	3932	the voter
3933	3933	by thwarting the voter's intent and infringed upon PlaintiffMirrn's fundamental rights.
3934	3934	Ipswich Recount
3935	3935	50. ·-. The initial Ipswich count included a total of 7,457 votes cast and counted across
3936	3936	four precincts. Ex. A.
3937	3937	51. The Ipswich Recount included a total of7,471
3938	3938	votes-an increase of 14 votes. Id.
3939	3939	52. No explanation was provided as to why the vote count increased by 14.
3940	3940	53. At the Ipswich Recount, Ms. Kassner gained a net total
3941	3941	of five (5) votes. Id.
3942	3942	7 0011 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
3943	3943	Superior Court -Essex
3944	3944	Docket Number
3945	3945	54. The Ipswich Registrars made several errors of law in making determinations on
3946	3946	challenged ballots.
3947	3947	55. The first challenged ballot at
3948	3948	issue-from Ipswich precinct 4, block 37-involved
3949	3949	an alleged overvote by the voter. In at least one other instance on this challenged ballot, the voter
3950	3950	wrote in "Donald Trump" where no Republican ·candidate was listed. However, where a
3951	3951	Republican was listed on the ballot, the voter cast his or her vote for the Republican candidate. On
3952	3952	this challenged· ballot, the voter filled in
3953	3953	tlw oval for Plaintiff Mirra after mistakenly writing in
3954	3954	Donald Trump. The election worker called the ballot
3955	3955	as a vote for Plaintiff Mirra, determining that
3956	3956	the will
3957	3957	of the voter was reasonably ascertainable when viewing the ballot as a whole. Counsel for
3958	3958	Ms. Kassner challenged
3959	3959	the call. The Ipswich Registrars decided that the ballot was a blank.
3960	3960	Counsel for PlaintiffMirra further challenged the ballot and preserved it for litigation.
3961	3961	56. The Ipswich Registrars improperly overruled the call, opining that the ballot was a
3962	3962	blank because Donald Trump
3963	3963	is a real person. The Ipswich Registrars failed to evaluate the ballot
3964	3964	as a whole, and as such ignored the voter's intent, which was consistent and could be reasonably
3965	3965	ascertained: to vote for the Republican candidate, or alternatively write in Donald Trump
3966	3966	if no
3967	3967	Republican candidate was listed on the ballot See O'Brien, 257 Mass. at 338-39 ("if the intent of
3968	3968	the voter can be determined with reasonable certainty from an inspection of the ballot ... , effect
3969	3969	must be given to that intent and the vote counted.").
3970	3970	57. The second challenged ballot
3971	3971	at issue-from Ipswich precinct 1, bl?ck 19-
3972	3972	involved an alleged overvote by the voter. Throughout this challenged ballot, the voter m~de
3973	3973	consistent marks in the ovals appearing next to the name of his or her desired candidate. The voter.
3974	3974	made a similarly consistent mark in the oval for Plaintiff Mirra. The voter's mark in Plaintiff
3975	3975	Mirra's oval extended ever-so-slightly into the oval for Kristin Kassner. The election worker called
3976	3976	8 0012 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM.
3977	3977	Superior Court -Essex
3978	3978	Docket Number
3979	3979	the ballot as a vote for Plaintiff Mirra, determining that the will of the voter was reason~bly
3980	3980	ascertainable when viewing the ballot as a whole. Counsel for Ms. Kassner challenged the call.
3981	3981	The Ipswich Registrars improperly overruled the call and determined that the ballot was an
3982	3982	. '
3983	3983	overvote (thus a blank). Counsel for Plaintiff Mirra further challenged the ballot and preserved it
3984	3984	· for litigation.
3985	3985	58. The consistent markings
3986	3986	on the second challenged ballot make the voter's intent
3987	3987	clear: -to vote for Plaintiff Mirra. The Ipswich Registrars ignored bedrock Massachusetts law by
3988	3988	failing to give effect to the voter's reasonably ascertainable choice,
3989	3989	Kane, 328 Mass. at 518, and
3990	3990	by extension violated Plaintiff Mirra's fundamental rights afforded to him by the Massachusetts
3991	3991	Declaration
3992	3992	of Rights.
3993	3993	59. Furtherinore, the Ipswich Registrars' determination was contrary to the recount
3994	3994	guide provided by the Secretary.
3995	3995	See Exhibit B (Secretary's "Election Recounts" guide) at 15,
3996	3996	Example
3997	3997	14 (showing that a mark for a candidate that also "dips slightly into [the opponent's]
3998	3998	box". shall
3999	3999	be called for candidate and not as an overvote, and citing Desjourdy v. Board of
4000	4000	Registrars of Voters, 358 Mass. 644 (1971)); see also id. at 13, Example 6 (the vote shall be called
4001	4001	for the candidate despite
4002	4002	even more of the mark going into the opponent's box because the apex
4003	4003	of the .voter's mark was still in the candidate's box, and citing Kane).
4004	4004	60. Additionally, Plaintiff Mirra was afforded the opportunity to inspect the mail-in
4005	4005	envelopes to see
4006	4006	if the' signatures on the envelopes matched the voter's signature on the voter's
4007	4007	registration card.
4008	4008	See Exhibit C (Declaration of Plaintiff Mirra).
4009	4009	61.
4010	4010	In Massachusetts, election officials are obligated to compare the signature on the
4011	4011	mail-in envelope with the signature
4012	4012	on-the voter's registration. If an election official cannot
4013	4013	determine
4014	4014	if the mail-in envelope signature matches the signature on the voter's registration card,
4015	4015	9 0013 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4016	4016	Superior Court -Essex
4017	4017	Docket Number
4018	4018	it must be rejected. See Exhibit D (Secretary's "2022 Information For Voters" that addresses the
4019	4019	protocol for voting
4020	4020	by mail); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 54, § 94.
4021	4021	62. After inspection, Plaintiff Mirra found approximately 14 mail-in envelopes with
4022	4022	signature~ that drastically diverged from the corresponding voter registration cards.
4023	4023	See Ex. C.
4024	4024	63. The Ipswich Town Clerk made a substantial error
4025	4025	of law by failing to reject mail-
4026	4026	in ballots with signatures that did not match the voter's registration card.
4027	4027	Rowley Recount
4028	4028	64. The initial Rowley count included a total
4029	4029	of 3,203 votes cast and counted across
4030	4030	. one precinct. Ex.
4031	4031	A.
4032	4032	65. The Rowley Recount included a total of 3,206 votes-an increase of three (3)
4033	4033	votes, for which no explanation was provided.
4034	4034	Id.
4035	4035	66. Ms. Kassner gained a net total of five (5) votes at the Rowley Recount. Id.
4036	4036	67. The Rowley Registrars made several unlawful determinations concerning the
4037	4037	. challenged ballots.
4038	4038	68. The first challenged ballots at issue involve the unilateral 'unspoiling'
4039	4039	of ballots. A
4040	4040	set
4041	4041	of ballots was marked as "spoiled," and 10 of which were mail-in ballots. These 10 mail-in
4042	4042	ballots marked
4043	4043	as '.'spoiled" had been segregated from the other spoiled ballots. The 10 spoiled
4044	4044	mail-in ballots were not accompanied
4045	4045	by their respective mail-in envelopes. Plaintiff Mirra was
4046	4046	told that these
4047	4047	10 mail-in ballots were rejected by the voting machine, marked as spoiled, and not
4048	4048	hand-counted. The Rowley Registrars voted to disregard the "spoiled" determination for five (5)
4049	4049	of the 10 spoiled mail-in ballots and added the five (5) spoiled ballots to the Rowley Recount tally.
4050	4050	All five (5) spoiled mail-in ballots were called for Ms, Kassner. Counsel for Plaintiff Mirra further
4051	4051	challenged the ballots and preserved them for litigation.
4052	4052	10 0014 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4053	4053	Superior Court -Essex
4054	4054	Docket Number
4055	4055	69. Massachusetts is devoid of any law or judicial authority that allows for the
4056	4056	unspoiling
4057	4057	of a ballot already determined to be spoiled. Moreover, a ballot determined to be spoiled
4058	4058	is not even supposed to be included with other legally cast ballots.
4059	4059	See 950 Mass. Code Regs.
4060	4060	52.03A(l 1 )-(12) (A ballot marked
4061	4061	as spoiled shall be placed by an election official "in the spoiled
4062	4062	ballot envelope" and "shall not be placed in the ballot ~ox" with non-spoiled ballots). Furthermore,
4063	4063	given that the five (5) spoiled mail-in ballots were not attached to their respective mail-in
4064	4064	envelopes, it is unclear whether the spoiled-ballot voters were given the opportunity to vote again;
4065	4065	a double-vote would ,circumvent the principle
4066	4066	of one person, one vote.
4067	4067	70. The second challenged ballot involved an overseas ballot cast pursuant to the
4068	4068	Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act ("UOCA VA"). The UOCA
4069	4069	VA ballot in
4070	4070	question was not accompanied by
4071	4071	an affidavit. All other UOCA VA ballots included an appended
4072	4072	voter affidavit. This ballot was called for Ms. Kassner. Counsel for Plaintiff Mirra challenged the
4073	4073	ballot. The Rowley Registrars accepted the ballot
4074	4074	as called for Ms. Kassner. Counsel for Plaintiff
4075	4075	Mirra further challenged the pallot and preserved it for litigation.
4076	4076	71. The Rowley Registrars erred in giving effect to the second challenged ballot
4077	4077	becau~e
4078	4078	no affidavit was included to show that the voter was legally allowed to cast a vote for the
4079	4079	Election.
4080	4080	72. Additionally; prior to the Rowley Recount, the Secretary's counsel told Plaintiff
4081	4081	Mirra-that the candidates would be given the opportunity to.inspect the mail-in envelopes at the
4082	4082	Rowley Recount.
4083	4083	See Ex. C.
4084	4084	73. Plaintiff Mirra's representatives told the Rowley Town Clerk that they would like
4085	4085	to inspect the mail-in envelopes to see
4086	4086	if the signatures on the envelopes matched the signatures
4087	4087	on the voter's registration cards.
4088	4088	Id.
4089	4089	11 0015 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4090	4090	Superior Court -Essex
4091	4091	Docket Number
4092	4092	74. The Rowley Town Clerk refused to allow Plaintiff Mirra's representatives to
4093	4093	inspect the mail-in envelopes.
4094	4094	Id.
4095	4095	75. The Rowley Town Clerk erred by denying Plaintiff Mirra's representatives the
4096	4096	opportunity to review the mail-in envelopes. Such refusal calls into question the integrity
4097	4097	of the
4098	4098	Rowley Recount and tl\e ballots counted therein.
4099	4099	CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
4100	4100	COUNTI
4101	4101	De Novo Review Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 56, § 59
4102	4102	· 76. All preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference.
4103	4103	77. The determination
4104	4104	of the legal effect of a ballot is a question of law. McCavitt, 385
4105	4105	Mass. at 839;
4106	4106	Morris v. Board of Registrars of Voters of East Bridgewater, 362 Mass. 48, 49 .
4107	4107	(1972).
4108	4108	78: This Court must make a
4109	4109	de nova interpretation of the voter's intent when reviewing
4110	4110	a disputed ballot.
4111	4111	See 18C Mass. Prac., Municipal Law and Practice § 38.64 (5th ed.) (citing
4112	4112	DePetrillo v. Registrars of Voters of Rehoboth, 342 Mass. 13, 14 (1961)).
4113	4113	79. The challenged ballots;
4114	4114	supra, raise questions about the will of the voter and the
4115	4115	lawfulness
4116	4116	of the determinations made by the Georgetown Registrars, Ipswich Registrars, and
4117	4117	Rowley Registrars.
4118	4118	80. This Court must therefore exercise its equitabie
4119	4119	powers_ pursuant to Mass. Gen.
4120	4120	Laws ch. 56, § 59, and initiate a
4121	4121	de novo review of the challenged ballots.
4122	4122	COUNT II
4123	4123	Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231A, § 1
4124	4124	81. All preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference.
4125	4125	12 0016 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4126	4126	Superior Court -Essex
4127	4127	Docket Number
4128	4128	82. Anactual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties regarding the result
4129	4129	of the Election _and the Recount.
4130	4130	83. Plaintiff is entitled to initiate judicial resolution
4131	4131	of the controversy at the heart of
4132	4132	this Complaint.
4133	4133	84. A justiciable controversy exists for the persons entitled to initiate the judicial
4134	4134	resolution where there is a dispute involving a state agency's
4135	4135	or state employee's action or inaction .
4136	4136	pursuant to a statutory duty.
4137	4137	85. The challenged ballots,
4138	4138	supra, raise questions about the will of the voter and the
4139	4139	lawfulness
4140	4140	of the determinations made by the Georgetown Registrars,. Ipswich Registrars, and
4141	4141	Rowley Registrars.
4142	4142	' 86. The actions, decisions, mistakes, and inaction·
4143	4143	by De.fendant Town Clerks and
4144	4144	Registrars constitute
4145	4145	a substantial dereliction of duties imposed by Massachusetts law.
4146	4146	87. This Court should. declare the actions, decisions, mistakes, and inaction
4147	4147	by the
4148	4148	Defendant Registrars and Town Clerks were incorrect and unlawful, and declare that Plaintiff
4149	4149	Mirra is the rightful winner
4150	4150	of the Election, or in the alternative, that a special election is required.
4151	4151	supra.
4152	4152	COUNT ID
4153	4153	Contested Election
4154	4154	88. All preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference.
4155	4155	89. Plaintiff challenges the results
4156	4156	of the Election and Recount on the bases laid out,
4157	4157	90. As a result
4158	4158	of this election contest, this Honorable Court should find that the
4159	4159	reported Recount results were inaccurate and that Plaintiff Mirra was the duly elected candidate,
4160	4160	or alternatively that the Recount resulted in a tie and a special election is required.
4161	4161	13 0017 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4162	4162	Superior Court -Essex
4163	4163	Docket Number.
4164	4164	COUNT IV
4165	4165	Violation of Plaintiff's Fundamental Rights
4166	4166	91. All preceding paragraphs
4167	4167	of this Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference.
4168	4168	92.
4169	4169	In an election dispute, the "fundamental" rights of candidates. an4 voters are
4170	4170	"intertwined," entitling bcith to redress
4171	4171	in the.event of a constitutional violation. Goldstein v. Sec '.Y
4172	4172	of Commonwealth, 484 Mass. 516,524 (2020) (quotation marks omitted).
4173	4173	93. The Ma~sachusetts Declaration
4174	4174	of Rights provides that "all inhabitants of this
4175	4175	commonwealth, having such qualificatio_ns as they shall establish
4176	4176	by their frame of government,
4177	4177	have
4178	4178	an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments." Mass. Deel. of
4179	4179	Rights, Art. 9. These equal rights cannot be abridged by the failure of ministerial officers to count
4180	4180	votes for candidates
4181	4181	.. ·
4182	4182	94. The actions, decisions, mistakes, · and inaction
4183	4183	by the Defendant Registrars and
4184	4184	Town Clerks violated PlaintiffMirra's fundamental rights and disenfranchised voters who lawfully
4185	4185	. cast votes for Plaintiff Mirra.
4186	4186	PRAYER FOR RELIEF
4187	4187	WHEREFORE,
4188	4188	Plaintiff Mirra respectfully requests that the Court:
4189	4189	a) conduct a
4190	4190	de novo review of the ballots challenged_ in the Election;
4191	4191	• ·1, •
4192	4192	b) issue a declaratory j~dgment that Plaintiff Miirn is the winner of the Election, or in
4193	4193	the alternative, that the Election is a tie and a special election must
4194	4194	be held;
4195	4195	c) . order that the Election has been contested
4196	4196	by Plaintiff Mirra;
4197	4197	d) order that Defendant
4198	4198	Town Clerks and Registrars violated the fundamental rights
4199	4199	of Plaintiff Mirra and Massachusetts voters;
4200	4200	14 〰ㄸ Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4201	4201	Superior Court -Essex
4202	4202	Docket Number
4203	4203	e) order that the incumbent, Plaintiff Mirra, remain seated as Second Essex District
4204	4204	State Representative
4205	4205	for the pendency of this litigation, see Alicea v. Southbridge Registrars of
4206	4206	Voters, et al., Mass. Super. Ct. No. 1085-CV-02624;
4207	4207	t) award.Plaintiff the costs, including attorneys' fees, of bringing this Complaint; and
4208	4208	g) award such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
4209	4209	REQUEST
4210	4210	FOR HEARING
4211	4211	Plaintiff Mirr~ respectfully requests that this Court hold a hearing
4212	4212	on this Complaint at the·
4213	4213	Court;s earliest convenience.
4214	4214	Dated: December 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted by,
4215	4215	~
4216	4216	Michacl.S · ftan
4217	4217	MA BBO # 487210
4218	4218	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
4219	4219	MA BBO # 703170
4220	4220	Ashcroft Law Firm
4221	4221	200 State Street, 7th Floor
4222	4222	Boston, Massachusetts 02109
4223	4223	T: 617-573-9400
4224	4224	E: msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
4225	4225	E: camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
4226	4226	Attorney for Plaintiff
4227	4227	Leonard Mirra
4228	4228	15 0019 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4229	4229	Superior Court -Essex
4230	4230	Docket Number
4231	4231	Exhibit A 0020 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4232	4232	Superior Court -Essex
4233	4233	Docket Number
4234	4234	Precinct
4235	4235	Georgetown
4236	4236	Pct.1
4237	4237	Pct. 2
4238	4238	Pct. 3
4239	4239	Hamilton
4240	4240	Pct.1
4241	4241	Pct. 2
4242	4242	Ipswich
4243	4243	Pct.1
4244	4244	Pct. 2
4245	4245	Pct. 3
4246	4246	Pct. 4
4247	4247	Newbury
4248	4248	Pct.1
4249	4249	Pct. 2
4250	4250	Rowley .
4251	4251	. Pct.1
4252	4252	Topsfield
4253	4253	Pct.1
4254	4254	GRAND TOTAL
4255	4255	Mirra
4256	4256	873
4257	4257	743
4258	4258	765
4259	4259	774
4260	4260	743
4261	4261	614
4262	4262	778
4263	4263	919
4264	4264	809
4265	4265	965
4266	4266	1,021
4267	4267	1,835
4268	4268	915
4269	4269	11,754
4270	4270	· Original Tally
4271	4271	Kassner All Others
4272	4272	532 0
4273	4273	530 3
4274	4274	509 1
4275	4275	1,041 1
4276	4276	1,048 0
4277	4277	.i,112 2,
4278	4278	1,091 0
4279	4279	924 0
4280	4280	1,021 0
4281	4281	965 1
4282	4282	909 1
4283	4283	1,290 2
4284	4284	772 0
4285	4285	11,744 11
4286	4286	Blanks Total Mirra
4287	4287	32 1,437 873
4288	4288	21 '1,297 743
4289	4289	35 1,310 765
4290	4290	61 1,877 774
4291	4291	63 1,854 743
4292	4292	-~ -~
4293	4293	4Z: 1,770 613
4294	4294	49 1,918 779
4295	4295	43 1,886 920
4296	4296	53 1,883 ·, ' 813
4297	4297	60 1,991 966 ·
4298	4298	44 1,975 1,021
4299	4299	76 . 3,203 1,834
4300	4300	67 1,754 918
4301	4301	'646 24,155 11,762
4302	4302	Recount Tally Net Difference
4303	4303	Kassner. All Others Blanks Total Mirra Kassner All Others ' Blanks Total
4304	4304	r
4305	4305	533 0 31 1,437 0 1 0 -1 0
4306	4306	530 0 23 1,296 0 0 -3 ·2 -1
4307	4307	509 1 35 1,310 0 0 0 0 0
4308	4308	1,041 1 61 1,877 0 0 0 0 0
4309	4309	1,048 0 63 1,854. 0 0 0 0 ,0
4310	4310	... . . .. - -..
4311	4311	1,113 2 42 1,770 -1 i b 0 0
4312	4312	...
4313	4313	1,092 0 49 1,920 1 1 0 ' 0 2
4314	4314	925 0 43 1,888 1 1
4315	4315	.Q 0 2
4316	4316	1,028 0 52 1,893 · 4. 7 0 -1 10
4317	4317	968 0 57 1,991 1 3 -1 -3 0
4318	4318	907 1 43 1,972 0 -2 0 -1 -3
4319	4319	1,29,4 0 78 3,206 -1 4 -2 2 3
4320	4320	'
4321	4321	775 0 61 1,754 · 3 3 0 -6 0
4322	4322	11,763
4323	4323	C·
4324	4324	638 24,1~8 8 19 -6 -8' 13 ,J 0021 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4325	4325	Superior Court -Essex
4326	4326	Docket Number
4327	4327	Exhibit B 0022 · Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4328	4328	Superior Court -Essex
4329	4329	Docket Number
4330	4330	ii I
4331	4331	I
4332	4332	ELECTION RECOUNTS
4333	4333	, I
4334	4334	I .
4335	4335	William Francis Galvin
4336	4336	i I .
4337	4337	Secretary of the Coiµmonwealth
4338	4338	Elections Division
4339	4339	One Ashburton Place,
4340	4340	Room 1705
4341	4341	Boston,
4342	4342	MA 02108 ·
4343	4343	617-727-2828
4344	4344	800-462-8683
4345	4345	www.sec.state.ma.i1s/ele
4346	4346	elections@sec.state.ma.us
4347	4347	I
4348	4348	Revised 2017 ' I· 0023 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4349	4349	Superior Court -Essex
4350	4350	Docket Number
4351	4351	TABLE OF CONTENTS
4352	4352	I. Introduction .................................................................. · ........ -................................ 2
4353	4353	IL Before the Recount .......................... : ................................................................... 2
4354	4354	Petitioning for a Recount .......................................... : ................................... 2
4355	4355	Where to Get Petitions ................................................................................. 2
4356	4356	The Petition Form ........................................................................................ 2
4357	4357	Filing Procedure .............................................................................. : ...........
4358	4358	:3
4359	4359	Certification ............ , ............................................ : ........................................ 3
4360	4360	Filing Deadlines
4361	4361	& Signature Requirements .............................................. .4
4362	4362	Setting the Date for the Recount ................................................................. .4
4363	4363	D
4364	4364	. . . "
4365	4365	1scontmumg a Recount. ......................................... :············: ...................... 5
4366	4366	Preparation for the Recount ........................................................................
4367	4367	:.5
4368	4368	III. The Recount ......................................... : ............................................................. 6
4369	4369	Ballots
4370	4370	to be Counted by Hand .................................................................... 6
4371	4371	The Will.
4372	4372	of the Voters · ................................................................................. 7
4373	4373	Protested Ballots ................. : ........................................................................ 7
4374	4374	Absentee Ballots Rejected
4375	4375	as Defective ····································:···· .. ···········7
4376	4376	Write-in and Sticker Votes ........................................................................... 8
4377	4377	Challenged and Provisional Ballots ............................................................. 8
4378	4378	Optical Scanner Recount Procedures ........................................................... 9
4379	4379	When the Recount is Coinplete ..........................
4380	4380	.-................................. : ....... 9
4381	4381	IV. After the Recount. .......................................
4382	4382	.' ...................... · ............................. _ ... 9
4383	4383	V. District-wide Recount (Including Statewide) .................................................. .10
4384	4384	Petitioning ...............
4385	4385	_. .................................................................................. 11
4386	4386	Setting the Date of the Recount ................................................................. 12
4387	4387	Retention of Ballots ...................................... · .............................................. 12
4388	4388	Notice ........................................................................................................ 12
4389	4389	When the Recount is Complete .................. .' ............................................... 12
4390	4390	V. Examples of Contested Ballot Marks ..................................... : .......................... 12
4391	4391	1 0024 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4392	4392	Superior Court -Essex
4393	4393	Docket Number
4394	4394	I. INTRODUCTION
4395	4395	In Massachusetts, recounts are a quasi-judi~ial procedure based on the General Laws,
4396	4396	court decisions, and customs developed from practical experience. The purpose
4397	4397	of a
4398	4398	recount is to ascertain the will and intention
4399	4399	of the voters. McCavitt v. Registrars of
4400	4400	Voters of Brockton, 385 Mass. 833 (1982). ·
4401	4401	The rights
4402	4402	of all parties are clearly delineated in state law. Section 135 of chapter 54 of
4403	4403	the Massachusetts General Laws is the principal reference for the procedures in this
4404	4404	booklet. Sections 134, 135B, 136, and 137
4405	4405	of chapter 54 also contain relevant
4406	4406	information.
4407	4407	The following procedures apply generally to recounts of all offices and questions decided
4408	4408	in all local and state preliminaries, primaries, and elections. District-wide and-statewide
4409	4409	recounts after state primaries and elections (including presidential primaries, except for
4410	4410	ward and town committees) have additional requirements which are found
4411	4411	in a separate
4412	4412	section
4413	4413	IV of this booklet.
4414	4414	II. BEFORE THE RECOUNT
4415	4415	· Petitioning for a Recount
4416	4416	Candidates may initiate a recount
4417	4417	by petitioning the local election official in the city or
4418	4418	town
4419	4419	in which the recount is being requested. Only candidates for an office to be
4420	4420	recounted may petition for a recount. Any registered voter
4421	4421	of the city or town may
4422	4422	. petition for a recount
4423	4423	of a ballot question. The chart on page 4 shows petition filing
4424	4424	deadlines
4425	4425	and signature requirements for different types of recooots. In every case, it is
4426	4426	wise to secure more signatures than required,
4427	4427	Where to get Petition Forms
4428	4428	Recount petition forms are avallable from the Election Division
4429	4429	of the Office of the
4430	4430	Secretary
4431	4431	ofthe Commonwealth and from city or town clerks or election commissioners.
4432	4432	The petitioner must file a separate recount petition in each ward
4433	4433	of a city or precinct of a
4434	4434	town
4435	4435	in whi~h he or she desires a recount. ·
4436	4436	The Petition Form
4437	4437	Candidates who request a recount must specify on the petition form ·the office to
4438	4438	be
4439	4439	recounted-not the names of the candidates for that office. The form contains a statement
4440	4440	.that the signers have reason to believe that the election records are erroneous and that a
4441	4441	recount will affect the results
4442	4442	of that election; however, the petitioner must also specify
4443	4443	the particular reasons for the recount request. Care should
4444	4444	be taken in wording the
4445	4445	reasons for the recount
4446	4446	on the petition as no other count may be made or other
4447	4447	information taken from the ballots than what is specified in the petition.
4448	4448	In communities voting by optical scanner ballot, petitioners who want a hand count of the
4449	4449	ballots must state this on the form
4450	4450	by checking the appropriate box.
4451	4451	2 0025 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4452	4452	Superior Court~ Essex
4453	4453	Docket Number
4454	4454	Voters signing a recount petition must sign in person as registered, or substantially as
4455	4455	registered, listing their current address
4456	4456	of registration. The standards for certification of
4457	4457	signatures on recount petitions are contained in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations,
4458	4458	950 CMR
4459	4459	§ 55.03.
4460	4460	Voters signing petitions for recounts
4461	4461	of political party primaries must have been enrolled
4462	4462	in that party on or before the last day to register to vote in that primary. G.L.
4463	4463	c. 54, § 40A.
4464	4464	The signature
4465	4465	of one sign~r for each ward of a city or precinct of a town must be
4466	4466	notarized in the notarization certificate printed on the petition sheet. Each petition sheet
4467	4467	must be accompanied
4468	4468	by a written request for _a recount signed by the candidate on whose
4469	4469	behalf it is being conducted. The candidate's request is printed on the petition form in the
4470	4470	upper left hand comer. The candidate need only sign one petition in ·the proper place.
4471	4471	Filing Procedure
4472	4472	Recount petitions must be filed with city or town clerks, except in communities with
4473	4473	election commissions.
4474	4474	In such cases, the petitioris should be filed with the election
4475	4475	commission.
4476	4476	Note: When filing any recount petition for a special state election, it is also essential to
4477	4477	file a written statement
4478	4478	of your intention to seek a recount with the Secretary of the
4479	4479	Commonwealth, no later than 5:00 P.M.
4480	4480	on the sixth day after the election. G.L. c. 54,
4481	4481	§116. . .
4482	4482	Certification
4483	4483	Upon receipt
4484	4484	of recount petitions, the city or town clerk will deliver them to the registrars
4485	4485	of voters, along with the following materials from the election: sealed envelopes
4486	4486	containing the ballots cast, including absentee and challenged ballots; original tally ,
4487	4487	sheets; envelopes containing spoiled and unused ballots; voting lists used at the election;
4488	4488	certificates issued to voters omitted from the voting list; written affirmations ·of current
4489	4489	and continuous residence; precinct clerks' election records; applications for absentee
4490	4490	ballots and absentee ballot envelopes; the list
4491	4491	of voters who were sent abse.ntee ballots,
4492	4492	indicating whether the ballots were cast or rejected as defective or whether such persons
4493	4493	voted in-person; and the sealed envelopes containing the ballots rejected
4494	4494	as defective.
4495	4495	After examining the ·petition and statement and certifying the registration
4496	4496	of the signers,
4497	4497	the registrars shall schedule the recount. A recount may not be held before the deadline
4498	4498	for filing recount petitions. -
4499	4499	3 〰㈶ Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4500	4500	Superior Court -Essex
4501	4501	Docket Number
4502	4502	Recount Area*
4503	4503	Filing Deadlines and Signature Requirements
4504	4504	Local Filing
4505	4505	Deadline After a
4506	4506	Primary
4507	4507	or
4508	4508	Prelimina!'Y
4509	4509	Election
4510	4510	Local Deadline
4511	4511	After Election
4512	4512	Number of Registered
4513	4513	Voter Signatures
4514	4514	Required
4515	4515	City Ward (Except 5:00 p;m. on the 5:00 p.m. on the 10 or more from each
4516	4516	Boston)
4517	4517	6th day after 10th day after ·=~-ward
4518	4518	~:-i;~-r1-'.;;;--~,-,'i~~~r1~~~;;:_-c: ',~:-Iii~:~::' ·~1,:JA·-:~jz-;, -~-'---" =·"'\S~ ... ---,-<~""',·/~""C,:s:'=,r· .:zlS7·, ➔.~/·</J{:: , ~1;~:N,..,.~:{,..,,_~}~,.,..:-:ty;....,.i:-~--L,·-
4519	4519	5 :00 p.m. on the 5:00 p.m. on the
4520	4520	6th day after 10th day after
4521	4521	Boston Ward
4522	4522	ward
4523	4523	', ,'.£\!·•:'[;'""~•i,_........;_....__,:~-,~\_~¥-""'::_;_,;tf""'t:_\_·~-"":;'•A,,L ~~lt_;.·-.=~~-·---:..~-=c:..--,;,.;;_,=~~----_-::_~::.;;..-..... -::.=--~"""·~·:· "'"'·;;;;·-i~=,,-'~~=~-,:~,..,--_-_-:,.c.--""":;,.~"""""':_-w-1
4524	4524	Towns With Under
4525	4525	5:00 p.m. on the
4526	4526	6th day after
4527	4527	5:00 p.m. on the
4528	4528	6th day after
4529	4529	5:00 p.m. on the
4530	4530	10th day after
4531	4531	5:00 p.m. on the
4532	4532	10th day after
4533	4533	· *See the special requirements
4534	4534	for district-wide (including statewide) recounts after the· state
4535	4535	· 'primaries and elections, on page
4536	4536	10 ..
4537	4537	Setting the Date for the Recount
4538	4538	After examining the recount petition and certifying the registra,tion
4539	4539	of the signers, the
4540	4540	registrars must set the recount time
4541	4541	and place and give at least three days written notice of
4542	4542	this to each candidate for the office for which the recount was petitioned. In the case of a
4543	4543	recount
4544	4544	on a ballot question, they shall give notice to the person designated by the
4545	4545	petitioners and to the appropriate committee organized on the other side
4546	4546	.. For a recount of
4547	4547	any office or question appearing on a state primary or state election ballot, the registrars
4548	4548	must schedule the recount to be held within six days
4549	4549	of the filing deadline for a primary
4550	4550	recount petition and within ten days
4551	4551	of the filing deadline for an election recount petition.
4552	4552	The registrars
4553	4553	may decide when the recount will ·be held as soon as they receive the
4554	4554	petition, but it may be advisable to wait until after the petition filing deadline,
4555	4555	if other
4556	4556	recounts are possible.
4557	4557	The notice sent
4558	4558	by the registrars must include the date and time of the recount in addition
4559	4559	to the number
4560	4560	of agents allowed, which will be equal to the number of persons counting
4561	4561	and checking ballots for the registrars at the recount. Upon setting the date and time
4562	4562	of a
4563	4563	recount for an office or question appearing
4564	4564	on a state primary or state election ballot, the
4565	4565	registrars shall notify the Secretary
4566	4566	of the Commonwealth in writing of what office or
4567	4567	question is to be· recounted, the time and place of the recount, and the number of
4568	4568	observers (agents) to which each candidate is entitled.
4569	4569	4 0027 . Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4570	4570	Superior Court -Essex
4571	4571	Docket Number
4572	4572	Discontinuing a Recount
4573	4573	If the candidate who filed the petition for a recount files a written request with the city or
4574	4574	town clerk that the reQount
4575	4575	be discontinued, the clerk shall immediately order the recount
4576	4576	discontinued and shall notify each candidate that unless a written objection is received
4577	4577	within 72 hours after the notice was sent, the recount shall
4578	4578	be discontinued. If a written
4579	4579	objection is received within 72 hours, the recount must continue.
4580	4580	If no objections are
4581	4581	received within 72 hours, the recount is discontinued.
4582	4582	Preparation for the Recount
4583	4583	Responsibility for the good order and smooth functioning of the recount proceedings lies
4584	4584	with the registrars or election commissioners. It is preferable to have all four registrars or
4585	4585	election commissioners at the recount,
4586	4586	but a minimum of three is required. If necessary, a
4587	4587	temporary registrar
4588	4588	may be appointed by the mayor or selectmen in accordance with the
4589	4589	provisions· and procedures set forth in section 20
4590	4590	of chapter 51 of the General Laws.
4591	4591	The registrars
4592	4592	or election commissioners sit as 'judges" of the protested ballots; they do
4593	4593	not tally
4594	4594	the votes, but may appoint the number of cler_ks necessary to do the actual .
4595	4595	recounting.
4596	4596	In addition to the ballot readers and clerks who record the ballots (tally
4597	4597	clerks), th~re should
4598	4598	be "runners" to bring the protested ballots to the registrars for
4599	4599	examination and decision, and
4600	4600	if desired, a stenographer to record the protested ballots.
4601	4601	Designated "agents" or legal counsel can make arguments respecting the protested ballots
4602	4602	only to the registrars, not the ballot readers or tally clerks.
4603	4603	Once a recount begins, all candidates ( or ballot question representatives) have exactly the
4604	4604	same rights, regardless
4605	4605	of whether or not they requested the recount.
4606	4606	Each candidate for the office in question or person representing each side
4607	4607	of a ballot
4608	4608	question is allowed to witness the recount, accompanied
4609	4609	by one or more counsel if
4610	4610	desired. Each candidate or representative may also be represented by agents. Up to one
4611	4611	agent for each officer or clerk reading the ballots
4612	4612	or recording the votes is allowed. These
4613	4613	agents
4614	4614	must be appointed:by the candidate or counsel in writing and have the right, along
4615	4615	with the candidate and counsel, to watch and· inspect the ballots, tally sheets and all other
4616	4616	papers used
4617	4617	inthe recount, and to watch every individual act performed in connection
4618	4618	with the recount.
4619	4619	The general public
4620	4620	may also witness the recount but cannot participate.
4621	4621	Candidates or their counsel should, prior to the recount, consult with the registrars or
4622	4622	election commissioners regarding procedures and in turn, instruct their agents.
4623	4623	In some
4624	4624	communities the registrars or commissioners instruct all parties before the recount begins.
4625	4625	Some send out instructions to the candidates or agents
4626	4626	in advance of the recount
4627	4627	The set-up of the recount will vary depending on the size of the city or town, the number
4628	4628	of ballots to be counted, the number of teams and tables, the space available, as well as
4629	4629	5 0028 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4630	4630	Superior Court - Essex
4631	4631	Docket Number
4632	4632	other factors. The"number of counting tables will be determined based on the number of
4633	4633	teams counting ·the ballots. The table for the registrars, with places for the candidates'
4634	4634	counsel
4635	4635	or representatives, should be separate from the tables where the counting takes
4636	4636	place.. ·
4637	4637	All candidates for the office
4638	4638	in question may, upon written request to the city or town
4639	4639	clerk, obtain and examine the record books and the precinct clerk's book, where used;
4640	4640	and
4641	4641	may require that a count be made of the number of persons checked on the voting
4642	4642	lists as having voted and that the figures
4643	4643	on each ballot box register be examined. G.L. c.
4644	4644	54, § 108.
4645	4645	III. THE RECOUNT
4646	4646	After the registrars and their clerks are in place, the candidates' representatives and
4647	4647	agents are admitted to the recount area
4648	4648	upon presentation of their written authorization.
4649	4649	Only those people directly involved in the recount can
4650	4650	be present within the recount area;
4651	4651	. however, the public
4652	4652	and the press must be admitted into the room w.here the recount is
4653	4653	beingconducted, to observe the proceedings. Members
4654	4654	of the public'must remain outside
4655	4655	theTecount area. In some communities, badges are provided to identify the people present
4656	4656	and their different roles and some commmiities use a "guardrail" to designate the recount
4657	4657	area.
4658	4658	The registrars
4659	4659	musf supervise the removal of the ballots from the vault, and check for
4660	4660	proper seals and markings.
4661	4661	The candidates' counsel may accompany the registrars and
4662	4662	ascertain to their satisfaction that all is in order. · ·
4663	4663	Ballots to be Counted by Hand
4664	4664	Before _the ballots are counted; they are first separated into blocks of 50 and each block is
4665	4665	put into an envelope. Each counting team will receive a block of 50 ballots and a tally
4666	4666	sheet on which to record the votes. While all ballots are to
4667	4667	be counted, only the office or
4668	4668	question being recounted is to be read and tallied. Those ballots protested during the
4669	4669	recount are counted
4670	4670	~n accordance with the decision of the majority of the board of
4671	4671	registrars. If there is a 2 - 2 vote by the board of registrars, the ballot is counted as called
4672	4672	by the ballot reader. The recount includes counting all ballots cast for all the candidates
4673	4673	. for the office, blanks cast, all spoiled and unused ballots, and absentee ballot envelopes
4674	4674	and_ applications.. ·
4675	4675	Where hand-counted paper ballots are used, the boxes should be brought into the room
4676	4676	one at a time and an envelope containing a
4677	4677	block of 50 ballots with its tally sheet should
4678	4678	be delivered to each counting team one at a time.
4679	4679	There should be two clerks o~ each team, facing each other across the·table, one reading·
4680	4680	the ballot and one marking the tally sheet.
4681	4681	An agent for each candidate may stand behind
4682	4682	each clerk to watch and
4683	4683	may keep a tally, or make notes.
4684	4684	6 0029 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4685	4685	Superior Court -Essex
4686	4686	Docket Number
4687	4687	Only the registrars and their clerks are permitted to handle the ballots. No marks
4688	4688	whatsoever are to be made on the ballots. For paper ballots, each ballot should be spread
4689	4689	fully on the table in front
4690	4690	of the ballot reader so that everyone at the table may view first
4691	4691	the outside, and then the inside
4692	4692	of the ballot. A red pen or pencil is the only writing
4693	4693	instrument to
4694	4694	be used at the table by the tally-clerk, who enters the ballot count on new
4695	4695	tally sheets. Conversation should
4696	4696	be kept to a minimum.
4697	4697	The candidates' counsel and agents should also try to maintain tallies.
4698	4698	The Will of the Voters
4699	4699	All parties to a recount should keep in mind that the will of the voters, if it can be
4700	4700	determined with reasonable certainty, must be given effect.
4701	4701	If the marks on the ballot
4702	4702	fairly indicate the voter's intent, the vote should be counted in accordance with that
4703	4703	intent, as long
4704	4704	as the voter has essentially complied with the election law. The voter is not
4705	4705	disenfranchised because
4706	4706	of minor irregularities. Where, however, the ballot is marked in
4707	4707	a
4708	4708	way that leaves the intent of the voter unclear, the vote should not be counted. See
4709	4709	section V for examples
4710	4710	of contested ballot marks. McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters of
4711	4711	Brockton, 385 Mass. 833 (1982); Kane v. Registrars of Voter, 328 Mass. 511, 518
4712	4712	(1952); Munn
4713	4713	v. Dabrowski, 335 Mass. 41 (1956). ·
4714	4714	Protested Ballots
4715	4715	When a ballot is protested by any agent, the tally clerk should not record the vote. The
4716	4716	tally clerk should call the runner to take the ballot to the registrars' table where they may
4717	4717	make their determination in the presence
4718	4718	of the candidates' counsel. If all the counsel
4719	4719	agree with the registrars' ruling, the runner returns the ballot to the table where it was
4720	4720	originally protested and reports
4721	4721	how the registrars ruled. The tally clerk records the vote
4722	4722	as ruled and the ballot is resealed with the remainder of the ballots from that block. If any
4723	4723	counsel protests the ruling
4724	4724	of the registrars, one registrar signs the back of the protested
4725	4725	ballot and above his signature puts the block number, the office for which the vote was
4726	4726	protested, and the name
4727	4727	of the candidate for whom the vote was counted. This ballot is
4728	4728	returned to the table for counting according
4729	4729	to the registrars' ruling, and then brought
4730	4730	back to the registrars to be segregated with other protested ballots.
4731	4731	If the clerks finish counting the block before the runner returns with the protested ballot,
4732	4732	they should wait for its return before tabulating the block total or opening a new block
4733	4733	envelope.
4734	4734	Absentee Ballots Rejected as Defective
4735	4735	During a recount, the registrars examine the sealed inner ballot envelopes of absentee
4736	4736	ballots which have previously been rejected
4737	4737	as defective to determine whether each such
4738	4738	ballot should have been rejected or accepted. The ballot must be rejected
4739	4739	if the envelope
4740	4740	is not signed
4741	4741	by the voter. The envelope should not be rejected merely because a
4742	4742	signature is difficult to read.
4743	4743	The registrars shall make a statement on the back
4744	4744	of each of these inner ballot envelopes
4745	4745	giving their reason for rejecting or accepting these ballots during the recount. The
4746	4746	7 0030 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4747	4747	Superior Court -Essex
4748	4748	Docket Number
4749	4749	statement must be signed by a majority of the registrars. This determination is subject to
4750	4750	protest as each envelope is examined
4751	4751	at the recount. If the registrars decide to accept an
4752	4752	inner envelope originally rejected as defective, they must open the envelope, count the
4753	4753	ballot,
4754	4754	and attach the envelope to the ballot.
4755	4755	Write-in and Sticker Votes
4756	4756	Section 77 of chapter 54 of the General Laws provides that a voter intending to write-in a
4757	4757	candidate
4758	4758	on the ballot should insert "the name and residence of such candidate in the
4759	4759	space provided.''
4760	4760	The court has recognized the address requirement as a direction to the
4761	4761	voter rather. than a mandatory requirement.
4762	4762	In O'Brien v. Board of Election Commissioners, 257 Mass. 332, 338-339, 153 N.E. 553,
4763	4763	556 (1926) the court ruled that
4764	4764	"if the intent of the voter can be determined with
4765	4765	reasonable certainty from an inspection of the ballot, in the light of the generally known
4766	4766	conditions attendant upon the election, effect must be given to that intent ... The omission
4767	4767	of residence ... on some ballots on which the name has been written by the voters rightly
4768	4768	was found
4769	4769	not to invalidate such votes." See also Maiewski v. Board of Registrars of
4770	4770	Votei"s, 347 Mass. 681, 199 N.E. 2 d 680 (1964).
4771	4771	An "X" placed to the right of the candidate's name is permitted, but not required on a
4772	4772	write-in
4773	4773	or sticker vote.
4774	4774	Votes written
4775	4775	in for candidates who are already printed on the ballot for the same office
4776	4776	are considered over-votes
4777	4777	and must be tallied as blanks.
4778	4778	Challenged and Provisional Ballots
4779	4779	If any challenged or provisional:ballots were voted on Election Day, the registrars must
4780	4780	also decide whether to count or reject each such ballot. Challenged ballots result when a
4781	4781	voter whose name appears on a voting list is challenged at the polls for some legal reason
4782	4782	as
4783	4783	set forth in section 85 of chapter 54 of the General Laws. Challenged ballots will have
4784	4784	been cast in the ballot box and counted on Election Day, and are identified with the name
4785	4785	and address of the voter, as well as the reason for the challenge. ·
4786	4786	Provisional hallo.ts
4787	4787	may have been used in certain circumstances: if a voter's name did
4788	4788	not appear on the voters list, but the voter believed they were registered; if a voter was
4789	4789	required to present identification under the Help America Vote Act, but was unable to do
4790	4790	so;
4791	4791	and in primaries, if a voter believed they were listed with an incorrect party
4792	4792	affiliation. G.L.
4793	4793	c. 54, § 76C. The disposition of a provisional ballot is made after every
4794	4794	primary and election, regardless of whether there is a recount.
4795	4795	For challenged ballots, the registrars may hold a hearing at the recount on whether or not
4796	4796	to count each challenged ballot
4797	4797	but must hold a hearing when requested as part of the
4798	4798	recount. This will usually require deciding
4799	4799	whether the challenged voter in question was
4800	4800	eligible to vote. For this purpose, the registrars may issue summonses for witnesses or
4801	4801	documents, and may administer oaths. G.L. c. 51, §§ 48, 49; G.L. c. 233, § 8. The
4802	4802	registrars should also notify counsel for all candidates ( or for committees concerning a
4803	4803	8 0031 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4804	4804	Superior Court -Essex
4805	4805	Docket Number
4806	4806	ballot question) of the time and place of these hearings, and give counsel an opportunity
4807	4807	to examine and cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, and make arguments oflaw.
4808	4808	The registrars should then vote whether to count each ballot; a tie vote results in counting
4809	4809	a challenged ballot. The registrars should indicate
4810	4810	on the back of each ballot their
4811	4811	decision, signed
4812	4812	by those registrars who agree. If they decide to count it, they should add
4813	4813	the vote to the tally.
4814	4814	Optical Scanner Recount Procedures .
4815	4815	·
4816	4816	If the recount petition does not include a request to hand count the optical scan ballot, the
4817	4817	recount consists
4818	4818	of inserting the optical scanner ballots, including absentee ballots, into
4819	4819	the vote tabulator, which has been programmed and tested according to statute.
4820	4820	Challenged ballots are examined and,
4821	4821	if ruled acceptable, are included in the tabulation.
4822	4822	Any optical scanner ballot which is rejected
4823	4823	by the vote tabulator or which was mutilated
4824	4824	.
4825	4825	So that it could not be inserted in the vote tabulator should be counted by hand. ·
4826	4826	Hand counting optical scanner ballots
4827	4827	is similar to counting paper ballots. The general
4828	4828	rule about giving effect to the will
4829	4829	of the voter must be followed. Write-in votes are
4830	4830	counted whether or not the voter has omitted the address or failed to mark the vote
4831	4831	indicator for the write-in or sticker candidate. Sealed envelopes containing any ·absentee
4832	4832	ballots rejected
4833	4833	as defective are examined by the registrars. See page 7 for protested
4834	4834	ballot procedures.
4835	4835	When the Recount is Complete
4836	4836	When the recount is complete, and with the candidates' counsel present if they wish,
4837	4837	· ballots must be properly sealed in their containers, certified and returned to the vault. The
4838	4838	protested ballots must be placed in the vault
4839	4839	in a separate, sealed and certified envelope .
4840	4840	. Only one recount is permitted. The registrars may not order a "re-count'' unless the
4841	4841	.number
4842	4842	of ballots in a block does not add up to the block count (e.g. there is a block of
4843	4843	fifty ballots and the count shows 24 for "X," 24 for "Y" and 1 blank).
4844	4844	The registrars must make and sign a statement
4845	4845	of their determination of the results of the
4846	4846	recount. All materials, including the statement, must be returned to the city or town clerk
4847	4847	or election commissioners, who must amend the final vote allies. The amended records
4848	4848	stand
4849	4849	as the true record of the election.
4850	4850	The results
4851	4851	of any recount of votes cast at a primary or state election, whether or not the
4852	4852	·. tally has changed, must be reported immediately to the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
4853	4853	iv. AFTER THE RECOUNT
4854	4854	Rulings made by the board of registrars are binding and any appeal must be directed to
4855	4855	the Superior Court
4856	4856	in a civil action. G.L. c. 56, § 59; McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters of
4857	4857	Brockton, 385 Mass. 833 (1982). Any appeals should be pursued as quickly as possible
4858	4858	after the recount has been completed.
4859	4859	In the case of an appeal, only the ballots recorded
4860	4860	9 0032 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4861	4861	Superior Court -Essex
4862	4862	Docket Number
4863	4863	as protested at the recount are required to be produced, except by express order of the
4864	4864	court.
4865	4865	No officer recounting ballots may, except as required
4866	4866	by law; make any statement or give
4867	4867	any information regarding the ballots cast.
4868	4868	In state elections and primaries, the results of the election are declared by the statutory
4869	4869	deadline for certification, even
4870	4870	if a recount petition has been filed .
4871	4871	. In city elections, the city clerk shall not declare the result of an election until the time for
4872	4872	filing a petition for a recount has expired.
4873	4873	If a recount petition ha:s been filed, the results
4874	4874	of the election are.not declared until the ballots are recounted and the results amended.
4875	4875	G.L.
4876	4876	c. 54, § 137.'
4877	4877	In town elections, the results of an election are declared as soon as they are certified,
4878	4878	even
4879	4879	if a recount petition is filed. After the recount has been completed, if it appears that
4880	4880	a person was elected other than the person who was previously declared to be elected, the
4881	4881	registrars must sign a certificate
4882	4882	of that fact. The certificate must also state the number of
4883	4883	votes for each candidate, as determined by the. recount. The signed certificate must then
4884	4884	be filed with the town clerk. The town clerk must record the certificate and, within 24
4885	4885	hours, deliver a copy
4886	4886	of the certificate to both the candidate originally declared to be
4887	4887	elected and to the :candidate who by the recount certificate appears to be elected. G.L. c.
4888	4888	54, § 135.
4889	4889	The ballots and other materials for local elections must be preserved for 30 days. Ballots
4890	4890	and other materials from biennial state primaries and elections (in which ballots federal
4891	4891	candidates appear on the ballot) must be preserved for 22 months. 52 USC
4892	4892	§ .20701; In
4893	4893	order to compel a clerk to preserve materials beyond the required period, a candidate or
4894	4894	supporter
4895	4895	or opponent of a ballot question must file with the city or town clerk or election
4896	4896	commission a written claim to the office
4897	4897	or declaration of intention to contest the election
4898	4898	· within 30 days
4899	4899	of the election. G.L. c. 54, § 134.
4900	4900	· V. DISTRICT-WIDE RECOUNTS (Including Statewide)
4901	4901	While basic recount procedures also apply to district-wide (including statewide) recounts
4902	4902	of offices or questions voted on at a state primary, state election or presidential primary
4903	4903	(except for ward and town committees), there are some additional procedures.
4904	4904	These
4905	4905	procedures may be
4906	4906	used only if the margin of victory fs not more than one-half of
4907	4907	one percent (0.5%) of the votes cast for an office or question.
4908	4908	Please note that procedures and deadlines for district-wide and statewide recounts may be
4909	4909	changed for certain elections pursuant to state law. Questions regarding the petitioning
4910	4910	process for a specific election should be addressed to the Elections Division. 0033 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4911	4911	Superior Court -Essex
4912	4912	Docket Number
4913	4913	Petitioning
4914	4914	Petitioners must use different petitions for voters to sign from each city and town in the
4915	4915	district. District-wide ·and statewide petition forms are similar to regular recount petitions
4916	4916	on which candidates must specify
4917	4917	on the petition form the office to be recounted and
4918	4918	contains a statement that the signers have reason to believe that the eiectioil records are
4919	4919	erroneous and that a recount will affect the results
4920	4920	of that election. Further, the petitioner
4921	4921	must also specify the particular reasons for the recount request.
4922	4922	In communities voting by
4923	4923	optical scanner ballot, petitioners who want a hand count of the ballots must state this on
4924	4924	the form
4925	4925	by checking the appropriate box.
4926	4926	In district-wide
4927	4927	or statewide recounts of state primaries, petitions must be submitted to
4928	4928	local registrars
4929	4929	of voters no later than 5:00 p.m. on the third day after the state primary.
4930	4930	The petitions must then be submitted to the Secretary
4931	4931	of the Commonwealth no later than
4932	4932	5:00 p.m.
4933	4933	on the seventh day after the state primary.
4934	4934	In district-wide or statewide recounts of state election offices oi-questions, the petitions
4935	4935	must be submitted to the local registrars
4936	4936	of voters no later than 5:00 p.m. on the tenth day
4937	4937	after the election. The petitions must then be filed with the Secretary
4938	4938	of the
4939	4939	Commonwealth no later than 5:00 p.m.
4940	4940	on the fifteenth day following the state election.
4941	4941	·Fora district-wide recount, the petitions must be signed by one-fourth of the number of
4942	4942	voters required to sign a nomination paper to qualify a candidate for the ballot for that
4943	4943	office. For example, to request a recount
4944	4944	of the office of state representative, petitioners
4945	4945	· would rieed to file no less than
4946	4946	38 signatures -one-fourth of the 150 signatures required
4947	4947	in order for a candidate's name to
4948	4948	be printed on the ballot for state representative. Check
4949	4949	with the Elections Division for the exact number.
4950	4950	For a statewide recount, the petition
4951	4951	must be signed
4952	4952	by at least 1,000 registered voters of the C01;nmonwealth. There is no
4953	4953	limitation on where signatures may be obtained in the district; they
4954	4954	may all be obtained in
4955	4955	the same city or town, however, separate petition sheets must be used for each
4956	4956	municipality. Further, at least one signature on the entire petition must be sworn to before
4957	4957	a notary public. For a state primary district-wide or statewide recount petitions, signers
4958	4958	must have been enrolled in the proper party
4959	4959	as of the last day to register to vote for the
4960	4960	primary, which is twenty days prior to the date
4961	4961	of the primary.
4962	4962	After a state primary, the Secretary
4963	4963	of the Commonwealth will order the district-wide
4964	4964	recount conducted as soon
4965	4965	as it appears to him that the difference in votes is within the
4966	4966	required margin and that a sufficient number
4967	4967	of signatures have been submitted.
4968	4968	After a state election, the Secretary
4969	4969	of the Commonwealth must hold the recount petitions
4970	4970	until after the official tabulation
4971	4971	of votes is made by the Governor and Council. If the
4972	4972	difference
4973	4973	in the number of votes cast is greater than one-half of one percent of the total
4974	4974	number
4975	4975	of votes cast, the district-wide recount will not be held. If the difference is one
4976	4976	half of one percent or less of the total number of votes cast, the Secretary of the
4977	4977	Commonwealth will order that the registrars
4978	4978	of each city and town conduct the recount.
4979	4979	11 0034 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
4980	4980	. Superior Court -Essex
4981	4981	Docket Number
4982	4982	Setting the Date of the Recount
4983	4983	The board of registrars in each city or town shall set the date of the recount for an office
4984	4984	or question that appeared on a state primary for a date not more than 6 days after the
4985	4985	deadline for filing a recount petition for a primary and not more than 10 days after the
4986	4986	deadline for filing a recount petition for an election. For statewide offices and questions,
4987	4987	the recount date is not
4988	4988	set until after official tabulation as noted above.
4989	4989	Retention of Ballots
4990	4990	If a district-wide recount petition has been filed, all ballots must be retained by the city
4991	4991	. and town clerks for at least
4992	4992	60 days after the election.
4993	4993	Notice
4994	4994	Written notice of the time and location of the recount must be given by local registrars to
4995	4995	all candidates for the office to
4996	4996	be recounted in a district-wide recoul).t at least three days
4997	4997	in advance
4998	4998	of the recount. :In the case of a recount on a question, committees that favor
4999	4999	and oppose the question.are treated as candidates and as such are entitled to receive ·
5000	5000	notice
5001	5001	of the recount and have counsel and observers attend. ·
5002	5002	When the Recount is Complete
5003	5003	When the recount is complete, the registrars shall enclose and seal the ballots in
5004	5004	envelopes or containers, keeping all protested ballots in a separate envelope; make and ·
5005	5005	sign a statement
5006	5006	of their determination of the questions raised; and reh.nn all materials to
5007	5007	the city
5008	5008	or town clerk. The city or town clerk will amend the records, which stand as the
5009	5009	true record
5010	5010	of the election, and sends copies immediately to the Secretary of the
5011	5011	Commonwealth.
5012	5012	VI. EXAMPLES OF CONTESTED BALLOT MARKS
5013	5013	The below votes are examples of court rulings on contested ballots in election cases.
5014	5014	Smith
5015	5015	Jones
5016	5016	Count for Smith.
5017	5017	Example 1
5018	5018	Cross or check within parallel lines
5019	5019	containing name
5020	5020	of candidate.
5021	5021	Legal References:
5022	5022	Beauchemin v. Flagg,
5023	5023	229 Mass. 23, 118 N.E.
5024	5024	2d 251 (1918).
5025	5025	Coughlin
5026	5026	v. LeClair,
5027	5027	294 Mass. 434, 2 N.E.
5028	5028	2d 461 (1936).
5029	5029	12 0035 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
5030	5030	Superior Court -Essex
5031	5031	Docket Number
5032	5032	Smith
5033	5033	Jones
5034	5034	·· Count ·as ·a blank. -
5035	5035	Smith
5036	5036	Jones
5037	5037	Cot.int for Smith.
5038	5038	Smith
5039	5039	Jones
5040	5040	'Count for"fones.
5041	5041	Smith ..
5042	5042	Jones
5043	5043	Count for Smith.
5044	5044	Smith
5045	5045	Jones
5046	5046	Count·for Jones.
5047	5047	Example 2
5048	5048	Apex of cross on 'line.
5049	5049	. Legal Ref~rence:
5050	5050	• Coughlin v. LeClair,
5051	5051	294.Mass.434, 2
5052	5052	N.E. 2d 461, (1936).
5053	5053	Example~
5054	5054	Diag~nal marks used with some
5055	5055	consistency. ·
5056	5056	Legal Reference:
5057	5057	Gilligan v. Registrars of Voters,
5058	5058	3}3 Mass. 346~ 82 N.E. 2d 3 (1948).
5059	5059	Example 4
5060	5060	More
5061	5061	than one line intersecting
5062	5062	diagonal,
5063	5063	if distinguishable from
5064	5064	attempt to obliterate. -
5065	5065	Legal Reference:
5066	5066	Gilligan v. Registrars of Voters,
5067	5067	323 Mass. 346, 82 N.E.
5068	5068	2d 3 (1948).
5069	5069	Example 5
5070	5070	"X" clearly appears in Smith box;
5071	5071	diagonal line in Jones box inferred
5072	5072	to be error.
5073	5073	Legal Reference:
5074	5074	Gilligan v. Registrars of Voters,
5075	5075	323 Mass. 346, 82 N.E.
5076	5076	2d 3 (1948) . ..
5077	5077	Example 6
5078	5078	Apex of cross within Jones box.
5079	5079	Legal Reference:
5080	5080	Kane v. Registrars of Voters,
5081	5081	328 Mass. 511, 105 N.E.
5082	5082	2d 212 (1952).
5083	5083	13 0036 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
5084	5084	Superior Court -Essex
5085	5085	Docket Number
5086	5086	I :
5087	5087	Jones, .
5088	5088	,I '
5089	5089	·· Count for Jones.·
5090	5090	I !
5091	5091	,''
5092	5092	'Jones
5093	5093	. :I ,
5094	5094	Count for Smith.
5095	5095	Smitll
5096	5096	Jones
5097	5097	1
5098	5098	.
5099	5099	-, ,Countifor Smith.
5100	5100	;. "~-.... ' . . .
5101	5101	Example 7
5102	5102	Obliteration
5103	5103	or erasure.
5104	5104	Legal References:
5105	5105	Kane v. Registrars of Voters,
5106	5106	328 Mass. 511, 105 N.E.
5107	5107	2d 212 (1952).
5108	5108	Munn v. Dabrowski,
5109	5109	335 Mass. 41, 138 N.E.
5110	5110	2d 570 (1956).
5111	5111	· DePetrillo
5112	5112	v. Registrars of Voters,
5113	5113	342 Mass.13, 171 N.E.
5114	5114	2d 843 (1961).
5115	5115	Desjourdy
5116	5116	v. Board of Registrars of Voters,
5117	5117	358-Mass.
5118	5118	644, 266 N.E. 2d 672 (1971).
5119	5119	Morris
5120	5120	v. Board of Registrars of Voters,
5121	5121	362 Mass. 48, 283 N.E.
5122	5122	2d 854 (1972).
5123	5123	:Example 8
5124	5124	Imperfect cross.
5125	5125	Legal References:
5126	5126	Kane v. Registrars of Voters,
5127	5127	328 Mass. 511, 105 N.E.
5128	5128	2d 212 (1952).
5129	5129	Munn v. Dabrowski,
5130	5130	335 Mass.
5131	5131	41, 138 N.E. 2d 570 (1956).
5132	5132	Example 9
5133	5133	Checks
5134	5134	and crosses intermingled on
5135	5135	ballot,
5136	5136	or all checks. · '
5137	5137	Legal Reference:
5138	5138	Munn v. Dabrowski,
5139	5139	335 Mass.
5140	5140	41; 138 N.E. 2d 570 (1956).
5141	5141	Example 10
5142	5142	"V" within Smith box; no mark in
5143	5143	Jones. '
5144	5144	Legal Reference:
5145	5145	Munn v. Dabrowski,
5146	5146	335 Mass.
5147	5147	41, 138 N.E. 2d 570 (1956).
5148	5148	14 0037 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
5149	5149	Superior Court -Essex
5150	5150	Docket Number
5151	5151	Smith X
5152	5152	Jones 0
5153	5153	·count ·(o( Smi~h. ,
5154	5154	Smjth
5155	5155	Jones .. 3
5156	5156	Count for Jones.
5157	5157	Smith_· (
5158	5158	Jones
5159	5159	Count for Smith.
5160	5160	'/
5161	5161	. Smith ,I
5162	5162	Jones
5163	5163	' -
5164	5164	·Count for Smith.
5165	5165	Example 11
5166	5166	Consistent pattern of zeroes for
5167	5167	candidates not voted for.
5168	5168	Legal Reference:
5169	5169	Munn v. Dabrowski,
5170	5170	335 Mass. 41, 138 N.E.
5171	5171	2d 570 (1956).
5172	5172	Example 12
5173	5173	Use of numeral instead
5174	5174	of cross .
5175	5175	Legal Reference:
5176	5176	Munn v. Dabrowski,
5177	5177	335 Mass. 41, 138 N.E.
5178	5178	2d 570 (1956).
5179	5179	-
5180	5180	Example 13
5181	5181	Clear impression of cross on paper,
5182	5182	but only one leg penciled.
5183	5183	Legal Reference:
5184	5184	Desjourdy v. Board of Registrars of Voters,
5185	5185	358 Mass. 644, 266 N.E.
5186	5186	2d 672 (1971). ·
5187	5187	Example 14
5188	5188	Check
5189	5189	mark for Smith which dips
5190	5190	slightly into Jones' box.
5191	5191	Legal Reference:
5192	5192	Desjourdy v. Board of Registrars of Voters,
5193	5193	358 Mass. 644, 266 N.E.
5194	5194	2d 672 (1971).
5195	5195	15 0038 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
5196	5196	Superior Court -Essex
5197	5197	Do.eke! Number
5198	5198	,'
5199	5199	'I
5200	5200	1,
5201	5201	I,
5202	5202	,I
5203	5203	11
5204	5204	I
5205	5205	I.
5206	5206	!I I
5207	5207	Exhibit
5208	5208	11
5209	5209	,,
5210	5210	,I
5211	5211	1!
5212	5212	'I
5213	5213	:, I
5214	5214	I, '
5215	5215	C 〰㌹ Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
5216	5216	Superior Court -Essex
5217	5217	Docket Number
5218	5218	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
5219	5219	ESSEX, SS
5220	5220	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
5221	5221	Plaintiff,
5222	5222	V.
5223	5223	. ~ - .
5224	5224	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF
5225	5225	VOTERS,
5226	5226	SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
5227	5227	CIVIL
5228	5228	ACTIONNO.
5229	5229	TOWN OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
5230	5230	TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH,
5231	5231	TOWN OF ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
5232	5232	TOWN CLERK FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY,
5233	5233	and
5234	5234	WILLIAM F. GAL VIN,
5235	5235	in his official capacity as
5236	5236	Secretary
5237	5237	of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
5238	5238	Defendants.
5239	5239	DECLARATION OF LEONARD MIRRA
5240	5240	t, Leonard Mirra; declare, upon personal knowledge and under penalty of perjury, pursuant
5241	5241	to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268,
5242	5242	§ lA, that the following is true a11d accurate:
5243	5243	1. I reside in Georgetown, MA.
5244	5244	2. I am the State Representative for the Second Essex District.
5245	5245	3. I have served as the_State Representative for the Second Essex District since being
5246	5246	elected in 2012.
5247	5247	4. The allegations contained ,vithin the Complaint (to which this Declaration is
5248	5248	an
5249	5249	exhibit) are true and accurate to the best ofmy knowledge.
5250	5250	5. On or about November 16, 2022, I spoke with counsel for Defendant William
5251	5251	· Francis Galvin, the Secretary
5252	5252	of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ("Secretary Galvin" or
5253	5253	1 0040 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
5254	5254	Superior Court -Essex
5255	5255	Docket Number
5256	5256	"Secretary"), regarding the Second Essex District State Representative election (the '-'Election")
5257	5257	-
5258	5258	and a district-wide recount forthe same ("Recount").
5259	5259	6. I asked for the opportunity
5260	5260	to ~pect the mail-in envelopes and the corresponding
5261	5261	voter registration cards· for all six towns within the Sec~nd Essex District because 1; or a
5262	5262	-representative
5263	5263	of mine, wanted to compare the signatures on the mail-in envelopes with the
5264	5264	- .
5265	5265	signatures on the accompanying voter registration cards and see if the signatures matched.
5266	5266	7. Counsel for
5267	5267	the: Secretary informed me that I would be able to inspect the mail-in
5268	5268	envelopes
5269	5269	and corresponding voter registration cards_ at the Recount in all six towns within the
5270	5270	Second Essex District, including
5271	5271	at the Ipswich and Rowley Recounts.
5272	5272	8.
5273	5273	i inspected the mail-in envelopes and accompanying voter registration cards at the
5274	5274	Ipswich Recount.
5275	5275	I fqund,appFoximately J4 mail-in envelopes with signatures that substantially
5276	5276	diverged from the signatures
5277	5277	on the corresponding voter registration cards. -
5278	5278	9: The Rowley Recount happened simultaneously with the Ipswich Recount, and as
5279	5279	such I was unable to attend the Rowley Recount,. However, I had representatives attend the Rowley
5280	5280	Recount
5281	5281	on my behalf.
5282	5282	10. My representatives told the Town Clerk for the Town of Rowley ("Rowley Town
5283	5283	Clerk") that th~y would like to inspect the mail-in envelopes to see if the signatures on the
5284	5284	envelopes matched the voter's signature on the voter's registration card.
5285	5285	11. . '.fhe Rowley
5286	5286	Town Clerk refused to allow my representatives to inspect the mail-in
5287	5287	envelopes.
5288	5288	Executed on: December
5289	5289	1 i , 2022
5290	5290	Location:
5291	5291	v -~.-
5292	5292	~-"Lenny'' Mirra
5293	5293	2 0041 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
5294	5294	Superior Court -Essex
5295	5295	Docket Number
5296	5296	Exhibit D 0042 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
5297	5297	Superior,~,;1.i,ict..-Essex.
5298	5298	Docketl~ 5:U4 1-'M
5299	5299	Elections: 2022 lnformatiori For Voters
5300	5300	2022 Information For Voters
5301	5301	Election Security
5302	5302	Elections in Massachusetts are secure, verifiable, and transparent. With recent
5303	5303	changes to
5304	5304	our election laws, you may have questions about the safeguards in
5305	5305	place to ensure that every vote is counted,legally and accurately.
5306	5306	Verifiable Paper Trail
5307	5307	,1 '
5308	5308	In Massachusetts, every voter casts a p~per ballot. Ballots are counted either
5309	5309	by an electronic tabulator or by election workers who tally the votes by hand.
5310	5310	No matter how your ballot was counted, election workers record all votes on a
5311	5311	paper tally sheet in each polling place after polls close. All ballot counting
5312	5312	and
5313	5313	tallying takes place in public, with anyone welcome to observe the process.
5314	5314	Each local election office·uses those tally sheets to compile unofficial results.
5315	5315	Election results become-official after they are checked thoroughly, certified by
5316	5316	the local election official, reported to th'3 Secretary
5317	5317	of the Commonwealth's
5318	5318	office,
5319	5319	and certified again by the Goveri;ior and the Governor's Council.
5320	5320	Candidates always have the
5321	5321	right to pe~ition for a hand recount of ballots to
5322	5322	verify
5323	5323	that the official count was _accura~e.:
5324	5324	' ii I
5325	5325	Ballot Tabulators
5326	5326	All ballot tabulators in Massachusetts are certified for use by the federal
5327	5327	Election Assistance Commission and thT S~cretary
5328	5328	of Commonwealth.
5329	5329	Goto:
5330	5330	Offices on the Ballot in 2022
5331	5331	Question 1
5332	5332	Question 2
5333	5333	Question 3
5334	5334	Question 4
5335	5335	Voting in 2022
5336	5336	How to Register to Vote
5337	5337	Voting..QY. Mail
5338	5338	Voting Early In-Person
5339	5339	Voting
5340	5340	on Election Day
5341	5341	·
5342	5342	Freg uentlY. As_ked Questions
5343	5343	Election Security
5344	5344	Be a Poll Worker
5345	5345	Milita[Y. and Overseas Voters
5346	5346	Massachusetts Voters' Bill
5347	5347	of
5348	5348	filghts
5349	5349	Elections Home
5350	5350	Before
5351	5351	each election, local election officials must hold public logic & accura_cy testing of all tabulators that will be
5352	5352	used in the election. Each tabulator is tested to make sure it is counting ballots accurately. The testing date,
5353	5353	time, and location
5354	5354	is publfcly posted, and members of the public are welcome to observe. Local party
5355	5355	committ,ees are also invited
5356	5356	to observe ,testing of the voting equipment.
5357	5357	Only tabulators that count paper ballots are certified
5358	5358	for use in Massachusetts. No voting tabulators in
5359	5359	Massachusetts are connected to the internet. ·
5360	5360	1: I
5361	5361	1: i
5362	5362	Voting by Mail
5363	5363	' I •.
5364	5364	Your Vote by Mail ballot will be checked' i'n as quickly as possible after it ·reaches your local election office. Your
5365	5365	local election official will open the outer mailing envelope
5366	5366	and check your inner ballot envelope for your
5367	5367	signature. The signature
5368	5368	on the ballot envelope will be compared to the signature on file with your local election
5369	5369	office.
5370	5370	If your ballot envelope is signed and accepted, your local election official will mark your name off the voter list
5371	5371	so that you can't vote again. The voter iist used at your polling place will show that you have already voted.
5372	5372	If your ballot is not accepted, you will be n~tified that your ballot needed to be rejected and you will still be able
5373	5373	to vote
5374	5374	in person. If time allows, you will be sent a replacement ballot to use _to vote by mail.
5375	5375	,, '
5376	5376	I
5377	5377	All mail-in ballots are checked against the voter list before they are counted. This prevents any voter from
5378	5378	voting more than once. A mail-in ballot 'that arrives after someone
5379	5379	has voted in person will be rejected when the
5380	5380	ballot
5381	5381	is checked· in.
5382	5382	Ballot Counting
5383	5383	When you vote in person at your polling place, you place your own ballot directly into the locked ballot box,
5384	5384	where
5385	5385	it remains until after polls close. !Ballots inserted into tabulators are counted as you insert them, while
5386	5386	ballots inserted into
5387	5387	other ballot boxes ;:ire counted in the polling place after polls close.
5388	5388	When you vote early
5389	5389	in person or vote by mail, you place your ballot into a ballot envelope, which _is kept sealed
5390	5390	and secured until
5391	5391	it is ready to be counted. Ballots are never unsealed until a public tabulation session has
5392	5392	begun.
5393	5393	,'
5394	5394	https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele22/information-for-voters-22/election-security.htm 1/2 0043 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
5395	5395	Superio~~l>.l,IU.,-Essex.
5396	5396	Docket
5397	5397	1
5398	5398	~ 5
5399	5399	:u4
5400	5400	1-'M
5401	5401	Elections: 2022 Information For Voters
5402	5402	All ballots are counted
5403	5403	in public, either at a central tabulation facility or at your polling place on Election Day.
5404	5404	Before any early
5405	5405	or absentee ballot is counted, the name and address on the envelope is read aloud and the
5406	5406	voter's name
5407	5407	is marked off on the voter list.
5408	5408	Observers are welcome to attend tabulation sessions, which
5409	5409	mw;t be publicly posted by your local electio~ office.
5410	5410	Any ballots
5411	5411	not tabulated at a central tabulation facility are sent to the appropriate polling place to be inserted
5412	5412	into
5413	5413	the ballot box on Election Day.
5414	5414	Observers are also welcome in polling places to watch the voting process and the counting of ballots at the end
5415	5415	of the night. Observers must not interfere with the voting process and must observe from a designated location
5416	5416	outside
5417	5417	of the voting area.
5418	5418	Election Result$
5419	5419	For the November 8, 2022 State Election, unofficial election results reported on Election Night will include all
5420	5420	ballots counted through November
5421	5421	8. Those results will include:
5422	5422	• All ballots.cast during the early voting period;
5423	5423	• All mail-in ballots returned by November
5424	5424	7;
5425	5425	• All ballots cast in person on Election· Day.
5426	5426	Ballots returned by mail
5427	5427	or drop box on Election Day will be sent to be processed at the local election office, so
5428	5428	that signatures on the ballot envelopes can be examined and voter lists can be consulted.
5429	5429	Mail-in ballots
5430	5430	that arrive by November 12, 2022 will be counted as long as they are postmarked by Election
5431	5431	Day. -
5432	5432	After voting lists from polling places have been returned to the local election office, the election officials will
5433	5433	c;heck any ballots that arrived on or after Election Day against those lists to determine if the voter who returned
5434	5434	the ballot has already voted in person. Ballots from voters who have already voted will be rejected.
5435	5435	Ballots
5436	5436	that are accepted on or after Election Day will be counted during a public counting session to be held
5437	5437	after
5438	5438	5 p.m. on November 12. Vote tallies will be amended to reflect those additional ballots before the results
5439	5439	become official.
5440	5440	<< Previous Next>>
5441	5441	William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
5442	5442	Terms and Conditions
5443	5443	AccessibilitY. Statement
5444	5444	https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele22/information-for-voters-22/election-security.htm 2/2 〰㐴 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
5445	5445	Superior Court -Essex
5446	5446	Docket Number ·2
5447	5447	.,::::;---
5448	5448	DOCKET NUMBER
5449	5449	I:; Trial Court of Massachusetts
5450	5450	•
5451	5451	CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET
5452	5452	2211CUOt24s
5453	5453	The Superior Court
5454	5454	-~'
5455	5455	~OUNTY lEss~x Superior Court (Salem)
5456	5456	Plaintiff Leonard Mirra Defendant: Town of Georgetown Registrars of Voters. et.al.
5457	5457	ADDRESS: 12 Larkspur Circle ADDRESS: Georgetown Town 1::fall
5458	5458	Georgetown; MA 01833 1 Library St. G,eorgetown. MA01833
5459	5459	Piaintiff Attorney: Michael J. Sullivan: J. th<istopher Amrlte,in. Jr, Defendant Attorney:
5460	5460	ADDRESS: Ashcroft Law.Rrm ADDRESS:
5461	5461	200 Stal!! Street. 7th Floor
5462	5462	Boston,·MA 02109
5463	5463	880: 487210 (MJS); 703170 (JCA) 880:
5464	5464	TYPE OF ACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (see instructions section below)
5465	5465	CODE NO.
5466	5466	TYP~ OF ACTl,ON (specify) TRACK HAS A JURY CLAIM BEEN MADE?
5467	5467	A01; D13; E99 'Complaint ·A;F;X 0 YES · l8J NO
5468	5468	•If "Other'' please describe:
5469	5469	Is there a claim urider G.L.
5470	5470	c. 93A? Is there a class action under Mass: R. Civ. P. 23?
5471	5471	□YES l8J NO 0 YES l8J NO
5472	5472	STATEMENT QE.D.AMA..G.1;:S PURSUANT TO G.L. c. 212. § 3A
5473	5473	The following is a full. itemized and detailed statement of the· facts on which the undersigned plainliffor plaintiffs counsel relies to determine money damages.
5474	5474	For this form. disregard double or treble damage
5475	5475	claims:, indicate single damages only.
5476	5476	TORT CLAIMS.
5477	5477	A. Dqcumented medical expenses to date
5478	5478	1. Total hospital expenses
5479	5479	2. Total doctor expenses
5480	5480	3. Total chiropractic expenses
5481	5481	4. Total physical therapy expenses
5482	5482	5. Total other expenses (describe below)
5483	5483	I I
5484	5484	Subtotal (1-5): $0.00
5485	5485	B; Documented lost wages and ·compensation to date
5486	5486	C. Documented property damages to date
5487	5487	D. Reasonably anticipated future medical and hospital expenses
5488	5488	E. Reasonably anticipated lost wages
5489	5489	F. Other documented items of damages (describe belolN)
5490	5490	l
5491	5491	·'
5492	5492	) !
5493	5493	TOTAL (A-F): $0.00
5494	5494	G. Briefly describe plaintiff's injury. including the natur~. and extent of injury:
5495	5495	I I
5496	5496	CONTRACT CLAIMS
5497	5497	D This action includes a claim involving collection of a debt incurred pursuant to a revolving credit agreement Mass. R. Civ. P. 8.1(a).
5498	5498	Item# I
5499	5499	Detailed Description of Each Claim Amount
5500	5500	1.
5501	5501	I
5502	5502	Total
5503	5503	l/'1n /l l
5504	5504	Signature of Attorney/Unrepresented Plaintiff: X A
5505	5505	'I //( j1_A_ J -1/4. • IL I l
5506	5506	Date: December 21, 2022
5507	5507	RELATED ACTIONS: Please provide the case n(lmbJ!r, case name. and co;fnrj of any related actions pending in the Superior Court.
5508	5508	V (J I
5509	5509	CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SJC RULE 1:18
5510	5510	I hereby certify that I have complied with
5511	5511	requirements of Rule 5 of the Supreme Judicial Court Uniform Rules on Dispute Resolution (SJC R ute 1:18) requiring that I provide my
5512	5512	clients with information about court-connected dispute resoiutipn )ljl~es and 91scuss wi1,ll !hem the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods of dispute resolution.
5513	5513	Signature of Attorney/Unrepresented Plaintiff: X /l I., I I,#'~ ./t--7 I I
5514	5514	Date: December 21, 2022
5515	5515	SC0001: 1/2212021
5516	5516	( ·.I
5517	5517	V
5518	5518	www.mass.Uur1s Daternine Printed: 12-21-2022 16:11 :42 〰㐵 Date Filed 12/21/2022 4:37 PM
5519	5519	Superior Court-Essex
5520	5520	Docket Number
5521	5521	CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET INSTRUCTIONS
5522	5522	SELECT CATEGORY THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR CASE
5523	5523	AC Actions Involving the State/Municipality •
5524	5524	AA 1 Contract Action involving Commonwealth,
5525	5525	Municipality, MBTA, etc. . (A)
5526	5526	AB1 Tortious Action involving Commonwealth,
5527	5527	Municipality, MBTA, etc. (A)
5528	5528	AC1 Real Property Action involving
5529	5529	Commonwealth, Municipality, MBTA
5530	5530	etc. (A)
5531	5531	AD1 Equity Action involving Commonwealth,
5532	5532	• Municipality, MBTA,
5533	5533	etc. (A)
5534	5534	AE1 Administrative Action involving
5535	5535	Commonwealth, Municipality, MBTA,etc. (A)
5536	5536	CN Contract/Business Cases
5537	5537	A01 Services, Labor: a·nd Materials (F)
5538	5538	A02 Goods Sold
5539	5539	and Delivered_- (F)
5540	5540	A03 Commercial Paper (F)
5541	5541	A04 Employment Contract (F)
5542	5542	A05 Consumer Revolving Credit -
5543	5543	M.R.C.P. e.1 (F)
5544	5544	A06.lnsurance Contract (F)·
5545	5545	AOB Sale or Lease of Real Estate (F)
5546	5546	A
5547	5547	12 Construction [)ispute (A)
5548	5548	A14 lnterpleader . . (F)
5549	5549	BA 1 Governance, Conduct, Internal
5550	5550	Affairs of Entities (A)
5551	5551	BA3 Liability of Shareholders, Directors,
5552	5552	Officers, Partners, etc.
5553	5553	(A)
5554	5554	BB 1 Shareholder Derivative (A)
5555	5555	BB2 Securities Transactions (A)
5556	5556	BC1 Mergers, Consolidations, Sales of
5557	5557	Assets, Issuance of
5558	5558	Debt, Equity, etc. · -~j
5559	5559	BD1 Intellectual Property (A)
5560	5560	BD2 Proprietary Information or Trade
5561	5561	,. Secrets (A)
5562	5562	BG 1 Financial Institutions/Funds (A)
5563	5563	BH1 Viola.tion of Antitrust or Trade
5564	5564	Regulation Laws
5565	5565	(A)
5566	5566	A99 Other Contract/Business Action -Specify (F)
5567	5567	• Choose this
5568	5568	case type if ANY party is the
5569	5569	Commonwealth, a municipality, the
5570	5570	MBTA, or any
5571	5571	other governmental entity UNLESS your
5572	5572	case is a
5573	5573	case type listed under Administrative Civil Actions
5574	5574	(AA).
5575	5575	t Choose this case type if ANY party is an
5576	5576	incarcerated party, UNLESS your case is a case
5577	5577	type listed under Administrative Civil Actions
5578	5578	(AA)
5579	5579	or is a· Prisoner Habeas Corpus case (E97).
5580	5580	EXAMPLE:
5581	5581	ER Equitable Remedies
5582	5582	DO 1 Specific Performance of a Contract (A)
5583	5583	D02 Reach and Apply (F)
5584	5584	D03 Injunction (F)
5585	5585	D04 Reform/ Cancel Instrument (F)
5586	5586	DOS Equitable Replevin (F)
5587	5587	D06 Contribution or Indemnification (F)
5588	5588	D07 Imposition of a Trust (A)
5589	5589	DOB Minority Shareholder's Suit (A)
5590	5590	D09 Interference in Contractual Relationship (F)
5591	5591	D10 Accounting (A)
5592	5592	D11 Enforcement of Restrictive Covenant (F)
5593	5593	D12 Dissolution of a Partnership (F)
5594	5594	D13 Declaratory Judgment, G.L. c. 231A (A)
5595	5595	D14 Dissolution of a Corporation (F)
5596	5596	. D99 Other Equity Actiori (F)
5597	5597	PA Civil Actions Involving Incarcerated Party t
5598	5598	PA 1 Contract Action involving an
5599	5599	Incarcerated Party (A)
5600	5600	PB1 Tortious Action involving an
5601	5601	Incarcerated Party (A)
5602	5602	PC1 Real Property Action involving an
5603	5603	Incarcerated Party
5604	5604	(F)
5605	5605	PD1 Equity Action involving an
5606	5606	Incarcerated Party (F)
5607	5607	PE1 Administrative Action involving an
5608	5608	Incarcerated Party (F)
5609	5609	TR Torts
5610	5610	B03 Motor Vehicle Negligence -Personal
5611	5611	Injury/Property Damage
5612	5612	(F)
5613	5613	B04 Other Negligence -Personal
5614	5614	Injury/Property Damage (F)
5615	5615	BOS Products Liability {A)
5616	5616	B06 Malpractice -Medical {A)
5617	5617	B07 Malpractice -Other (A)
5618	5618	BOB Wrongful Death -Non-medical (A)
5619	5619	B15 Defamation • {A)
5620	5620	B19 Asbestos {A)
5621	5621	B20 Personal Injury -Slip & Fall (F)
5622	5622	B2·1 Environmental (F)
5623	5623	B22'Employment Discrimination (F) ·
5624	5624	·BE1 Fraud, Business Torts, etc. {A)
5625	5625	B99 Other Tortious Action (F)
5626	5626	RP Summary Process (Real Property)
5627	5627	S01 s·ummary Process -Residential (X)
5628	5628	S02 Summary Process -Commercial/
5629	5629	· . Non-residential
5630	5630	(F)
5631	5631	TRANSFER YOUR SELECTION TO THE FACE SHEET
5632	5632	RP Real Property
5633	5633	C01 Land Taking (F)
5634	5634	CO2 Zoning Appeal, G.L. c. 40A (F)
5635	5635	C03 Dispute Concerning Title
5636	5636	(F)
5637	5637	C04 Foreclosure of a Mortgage (X)
5638	5638	COS Condominium Lien & Charges (X)
5639	5639	C99 Other Real Properly Action (F)
5640	5640	MC Miscellaneous Civil Actions
5641	5641	E18 Foreign Discovery Proceeding (X)
5642	5642	E97 Prisoner Habeas Corpus (X)
5643	5643	E22 Lottery Assignment, G.L. c. · 10, § 28 (X)
5644	5644	AB Abuse/Harassment Prevention
5645	5645	E15 Abuse Prevention Petition, G.L. c.209A
5646	5646	(X)
5647	5647	E21 Protection from Harassment, G.L. c. 258E{X)
5648	5648	AA Administrative Civil Actions
5649	5649	E02 Appeal from Administrative Agency,
5650	5650	G.L.
5651	5651	c. 30A {X)
5652	5652	· E03 Certiorari Action, G.L. c. 249, § 4 (X)
5653	5653	E05 Confirmation of Arbitration Awards (X)
5654	5654	E06 Mass Antitrust Act; G.L. c. 93, § 9 {A)
5655	5655	E07 Mass Antitrust Act; G.L. c. 93, § 8 (X)
5656	5656	EOB Appointment of a Receiver (X)
5657	5657	E09 C_onstruction Surety Bond, G.L. c. 149,
5658	5658	§§ 29, 29A {Ai
5659	5659	E10 Summary p·rocess Appeal (X)
5660	5660	E11 Worker's Compensation (X)
5661	5661	E16 Auto Surcharge Appeal (X)
5662	5662	E17 Civil Rights Act, G.L. c.12, § 11 H (A)
5663	5663	E24 Appeal from District Court
5664	5664	Commitrnent,-G.L. c.123, § 9(b)
5665	5665	(X)
5666	5666	E25 Pleural Registry (Asbestos cases)
5667	5667	Eg4 Forfeiture, G.L.
5668	5668	c. 265, § 56 (X)
5669	5669	E95 Forfeiture, G.L. c. 94C, § 47 (F)
5670	5670	E99 Other Administrative Action (X)
5671	5671	Z01 Medical Malpractice -Tribunal only,
5672	5672	G.L.
5673	5673	c. 231, § 60B (F)
5674	5674	Z02 Appeal Bond Denial
5675	5675	(X)
5676	5676	SO Sex Offender Review
5677	5677	E12 SDP Commitment, G.L. c. 123A, § 12 (X)
5678	5678	E14 SDP Petition, G.L. c. 123A, § 9(b) (X)
5679	5679	RC Restricted Civil Actions
5680	5680	E19 Sex Offender Registry, G'.L. c. 6, § 178M (X)
5681	5681	E27 Minor Seeking Consent, G.L. c.112, §.12S(X)
5682	5682	CODE NO. TYPE OF ACTION (specify)
5683	5683	Motor Vehicle Negligence-Perso~~I i~jury
5684	5684	TRACK HAS A JURY CLAIM BEEN MADE?
5685	5685	IZI YES □ NO
5686	5686	B03
5687	5687	STATEMENT O_F DAMAGES PURSUANT TO G.L c. 212, § 3A
5688	5688	DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF - The plaintiff shall set forth, on the face of the civil action cover sheet (or attach additional stieets as necessary), a
5689	5689	statement specifying the facts on which the plaintiff relies to determine
5690	5690	money damages. A copy of such civil action cover sheet, including the
5691	5691	statement as to the damages, shall
5692	5692	be served with the complaint. A clerk-magistrate shall not accept for filing a complaint, except as
5693	5693	otherwise provided
5694	5694	by law, unless it is accompanied by such a statement signed by the attorney or self-represented litigant.
5695	5695	DUTY OF THE DEFENDANT - If the defendant believes that the statement of damages filed by the plaintiff is inadequate, the defendant may
5696	5696	file with his/her answer a statement specifying the potential damages which may result if the plaintiff prevails.
5697	5697	SC0001: 1/22/2021
5698	5698	A CIVIL COVER SHEET MUST BE FILED WITH EACH COMPLAINT.
5699	5699	FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS COVER SHEET THOROUGHLY AND ACCURATELY
5700	5700	MAY RESULT
5701	5701	IN DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION.
5702	5702	www.mass.gov/courts Date/Time Printed:12-21-2022 16:11:42 1
5703	5703
5704	5704	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
5705	5705
5706	5706	ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
5707	5707	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2277-CV-01243
5708	5708
5709	5709
5710	5710	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
5711	5711
5712	5712	Plaintiff,
5713	5713
5714	5714	v.
5715	5715
5716	5716	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF
5717	5717	VOTERS,
5718	5718	TOWN OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
5719	5719	TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH,
5720	5720	TOWN OF ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
5721	5721	TOWN CLERK FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY,
5722	5722	and
5723	5723	WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as
5724	5724	Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
5725	5725
5726	5726	Defendants.
5727	5727
5728	5728
5729	5729	EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED AND
5730	5730	LIMITED DE NOVO REVIEW OF TWO CHALLENGED BALLOT S, AND
5731	5731	PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STAYING SWEARING -IN
5732	5732
5733	5733	Plaintiff Leonard Mirra hereby submits this emergency motion (“Emergency Motion”)
5734	5734	pursuant to Mass. Super. Ct. R. 9A(d)(1), asking this Honorable Court to conduct an expedited de
5735	5735	novo review of two challenged ballots from the election recount conducted in the Town of Ipswich
5736	5736	on December 7, 2022. This Court’s review of the ballots will show that the Second Essex District
5737	5737	State Representative election (“Election”) is, at a minimum, a tie between Plaintiff Leonard Mirra
5738	5738	and the purported winner Kristin Kassner. In conjunction with Plaintiff’s request for expedited de
5739	5739	novo review, this Court should issue injunctive relief to stay the swearing-in of Ms. Kassner
5740	5740	scheduled for January 4, 2023, until the above-captioned matter has been fully litigated.
5741	5741	Date Filed 12/23/2022 6:40 PM
5742	5742	Superior Court - Essex
5743	5743	Docket Number 2277CV01243
5744	5744	60046
5745	5745	RECEIVED 2
5746	5746
5747	5747	WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mirra respectfully requests that this Honorable Court conduct a
5748	5748	de novo review of the two Ipswich ballots identified in the accompanying Memorandum of Law
5749	5749	in Support of this Emergency Motion, and issue a preliminary injunction enjoining the swearing-
5750	5750	in of alleged Election winner Ms. Kassner.
5751	5751
5752	5752
5753	5753	Dated: December 23, 2022
5754	5754
5755	5755	Respectfully submitted by,
5756	5756
5757	5757	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
5758	5758	Michael J. Sullivan
5759	5759	MA BBO # 487210
5760	5760	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
5761	5761	MA BBO # 703170
5762	5762	Ashcroft Law Firm
5763	5763	200 State Street, 7th Floor
5764	5764	Boston, Massachusetts 02109
5765	5765	T: 617-573-9400
5766	5766	E: msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
5767	5767	E: camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
5768	5768
5769	5769	Attorney for Plaintiff
5770	5770	Leonard Mirra
5771	5771
5772	5772
5773	5773
5774	5774
5775	5775
5776	5776
5777	5777
5778	5778
5779	5779	Date Filed 12/23/2022 6:40 PM
5780	5780	Superior Court - Essex
5781	5781	Docket Number 2277CV012430047 3
5782	5782
5783	5783	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
5784	5784
5785	5785	I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the below via
5786	5786	electronic mail on December 23, 2022:
5787	5787	Counsel for Secretary Galvin
5788	5788	Anne Sterman
5789	5789	Adam Hornstine
5790	5790	Office of the Attorney General
5791	5791	One Ashburton Place
5792	5792	Boston, MA 02108
5793	5793	617-963-2524
5794	5794	anne.sterman@state.ma.us
5795	5795	adam.hornstine@state.ma.us
5796	5796
5797	5797	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants
5798	5798	George A. Hall, Jr.
5799	5799	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
5800	5800	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
5801	5801	Boston, MA 02109
5802	5802	617-621-6530
5803	5803	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
5804	5804
5805	5805	Counsel for Rowley Defendants
5806	5806	Yael Magen
5807	5807	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
5808	5808	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
5809	5809	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
5810	5810	781-245-2284 ext.2
5811	5811	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
5812	5812
5813	5813	Counsel for Georgetown
5814	5814	Lauren F. Goldberg
5815	5815	KP Law, P.C.
5816	5816	101 Arch Street, 12th Floor
5817	5817	Boston, MA 02110
5818	5818	(617) 654-1759
5819	5819	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
5820	5820
5821	5821	Counsel for Kristin Kassner, Proposed
5822	5822	Intervenor
5823	5823	Gerald A. McDonough
5824	5824	Attorney-at-Law
5825	5825	13 Hollis Street
5826	5826	Cambridge, MA 02140
5827	5827	(617) 529-1527
5828	5828	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
5829	5829
5830	5830	/s/ J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
5831	5831	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
5832	5832
5833	5833	Date Filed 12/23/2022 6:40 PM
5834	5834	Superior Court - Essex
5835	5835	Docket Number 2277CV012430048 1
5836	5836
5837	5837	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
5838	5838
5839	5839	ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
5840	5840	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2277-CV-01243
5841	5841
5842	5842
5843	5843	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
5844	5844
5845	5845	Plaintiff,
5846	5846
5847	5847	v.
5848	5848
5849	5849	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF
5850	5850	VOTERS,
5851	5851	TOWN OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
5852	5852	TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH,
5853	5853	TOWN OF ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
5854	5854	TOWN CLERK FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY,
5855	5855	and
5856	5856	WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as
5857	5857	Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
5858	5858
5859	5859	Defendants.
5860	5860
5861	5861
5862	5862	MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED AND
5863	5863	LIMITED DE NOVO REVIEW OF TWO CHALLENGED BALLOT S, AND
5864	5864	PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STAYING SWEARING -IN
5865	5865
5866	5866	Plaintiff Leonard Mirra moves this Honorable Court to conduct an expedited de novo
5867	5867	review of two challenged ballots from the recount conducted in Ipswich on December 7, 2022
5868	5868	(“Ipswich Recount”). This Court’s review of the ballots will show that the Second Essex District
5869	5869	State Representative election (the “Election”) is, at a minimum, a tie between Plaintiff Leonard
5870	5870	Mirra and the purported winner Kristin Kassner. Accordingly, this Court should issue injunctive
5871	5871	relief to stay the swearing-in of Ms. Kassner scheduled for January 4, 2023, until the above-
5872	5872	captioned litigation has been fully resolved by this Court.
5873	5873
5874	5874
5875	5875	Date Filed 12/23/2022 6:40 PM
5876	5876	Superior Court - Essex
5877	5877	Docket Number 2277CV01243
5878	5878	6.10049
5879	5879	RECEIVED 2
5880	5880
5881	5881	FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
5882	5882	The Election occurred on November 8, 2022. Dkt. 1 (Complaint) ¶ 23. The initial results
5883	5883	of the Election showed that Plaintiff Mirra received 10 votes more than Ms. Kassner. Id. ¶ 27.
5884	5884	Ms. Kassner petitioned for a district-wide recount (“Recount”). See id. ¶ 29. After the Recount,
5885	5885	Ms. Kassner purportedly picked up a net of 11 votes, thus emerging as the alleged winner by
5886	5886	one (1) vote. Id. ¶ 8.
5887	5887	On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff Mirra filed suit seeking de novo review of the challenged
5888	5888	ballots and, inter alia, declaratory relief. See generally Compl.
5889	5889	APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
5890	5890	The determination of the legal effect of a ballot is a question of law. McCavitt v. Registrars
5891	5891	of Voters of Brockton, 385 Mass. 833, 839 (1982); Morris v. Board of Registrars of Voters of East
5892	5892	Bridgewater, 362 Mass. 48, 49 (1972). This Court must make a de novo interpretation of the voter’s
5893	5893	intent when reviewing a disputed ballot. See 18C Mass. Prac., Municipal Law and Practice § 38.64
5894	5894	(5th ed.) (citing DePetrillo v. Registrars of Voters of Rehoboth, 342 Mass. 13, 14 (1961)).
5895	5895	To obtain a preliminary injunction, “the moving party must show that, without the
5896	5896	requested relief, it may suffer a loss of rights that cannot be vindicated should it prevail after a full
5897	5897	hearing on the merits.” Packaging Indus. Grp. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 616 (1980). A court must
5898	5898	“balance the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff and defendant in light of each party’s chance
5899	5899	of success on the merits at trial,” Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc., v. Operation Rescue,
5900	5900	406 Mass. 701, 710 (1990) (quotation marks omitted), “in light of the part[ies’] chance of success
5901	5901	on the merits,” Boston Teachers Union, Loc. 66 v. City of Boston, 382 Mass. 553, 556 (1981).
5902	5902	“When the balance of the equities favors the moving party, the preliminary injunction may
5903	5903	properly issue.” Id.
5904	5904	Date Filed 12/23/2022 6:40 PM
5905	5905	Superior Court - Essex
5906	5906	Docket Number 2277CV012430050 3
5907	5907
5908	5908	ARGUMENT
5909	5909
5910	5910	I. THIS COURT SHOULD CONDUCT AN EXPEDITED DE NOVO REVIEW OF
5911	5911	TWO IPSWICH BALLOTS
5912	5912
5913	5913	This Court’s expedited de novo review of two ballots challenged at the Ipswich Recount
5914	5914	will place doubt in the certified post-Recount Election results and prove that the Election is, at a
5915	5915	minimum, a tie between Plaintiff Mirra and Ms. Kassner. This Court is vested with the authority
5916	5916	to conduct such a de novo review. See supra (Applicable Legal Standard). Furthermore,
5917	5917	Massachusetts law is clear that legal disputes over the results of an election are to be resolved,
5918	5918	upon a motion, expeditiously. See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 48D.
5919	5919	The relief Plaintiff Mirra seeks here is extremely limited yet enough to materially change
5920	5920	the post-Recount Election results. Specifically, Plaintiff Mirra asks this Court for purposes of this
5921	5921	emergency motion, to review de novo just two challenged ballots: the first from Ipswich precinct
5922	5922	1, block 19, Compl. ¶ 57; and the second from Ipswich precinct 4, block 37, Compl. ¶ 55. With
5923	5923	regard to both, the election workers called the ballots as votes for Plaintiff Mirra, but the Ipswich
5924	5924	Registrars wrongly and unlawfully overruled the call and determined the ballots were blanks
5925	5925	instead of votes for Plaintiff Mirra. Compl. ¶¶ 55, 57. The Ipswich Registrars ignored controlling
5926	5926	Massachusetts law and disregarded Defendant Secretary’s own election recount guide. See Compl.
5927	5927	¶¶ 54–59. Given that the post-Recount margin of victory is one (1), rectifying the Ipswich
5928	5928	Registrars’ mistakes concerning the two Ipswich ballots will materially change the post-Recount
5929	5929	Election results that have already been certified. The requested limited de novo review is therefore
5930	5930	necessary and proper.
5931	5931
5932	5932
5933	5933	Date Filed 12/23/2022 6:40 PM
5934	5934	Superior Court - Essex
5935	5935	Docket Number 2277CV012430051 4
5936	5936
5937	5937	II. THIS COURT SHOULD ISSUE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF STAYING THE
5938	5938	SWEARING-IN OF MS. KASSNER UNTIL THIS MATTER HAS BEEN FULLY
5939	5939	AND FAIRLY LITIGATED
5940	5940
5941	5941	After this Court conducts its review, supra, it will either determine Plaintiff Mirra has
5942	5942	either won the Election or the Election will likely result in a tie, and thus find the post-Recount
5943	5943	Election results have been placed in doubt. When such doubt exists, Massachusetts courts will
5944	5944	order a new election. McCavitt, 385 Mass. at 850 (“[W]henever the irregularity or illegality of [an]
5945	5945	election is such that the result of the election would be placed in doubt, then the election must be
5946	5946	set aside, and the judge must order a new election.”).
5947	5947	Notwithstanding the necessity of a new election where the results have been paced in doubt,
5948	5948	Massachusetts courts have determined that while a post-recount election dispute is ongoing,
5949	5949	governmental operations are not to be disrupted and an incumbent is not to be removed until the
5950	5950	court determines the winner. See generally Alicea v. Southbridge Registrars of Voters, et al., Mass.
5951	5951	Super. Ct. (Worcester) No. 1085-CV-02624. In the Alicea case, Alicea, the incumbent, allegedly
5952	5952	lost the election by one vote to Peter Durant. Id. A Worcester Superior Court judge conducted a
5953	5953	de novo review of the challenged ballots and determined that the election was instead a tie. Id.
5954	5954	Alicia remained in office as a holdover legislator. A new election was ordered by the Worcester
5955	5955	Superior Court judge, and Peter Durant, the winner of the new election, was sworn into office in
5956	5956	May 2011, after the matter had been fully litigated and judicial orders completed.
5957	5957	The de novo review will show Plaintiff Mirra’s success on the merits as it relates to his
5958	5958	request for injunctive relief. Additionally, and importantly, Plaintiff Mirra, the incumbent State
5959	5959	Representative for the Second Essex District, will be irreparably harmed if he is removed from
5960	5960	office despite that a judicial review of just two ballots is enough to either completely change the
5961	5961	outcome of the Election or to show, at a minimum, the Election resulted in a tie between Plaintiff
5962	5962	Date Filed 12/23/2022 6:40 PM
5963	5963	Superior Court - Essex
5964	5964	Docket Number 2277CV012430052 5
5965	5965
5966	5966	Mirra and Ms. Kassner. Cf. Connolly v. Sec’y of the Commonwealth, 404 Mass. 556, 568 (1989)
5967	5967	(“If the ‘winning’ candidate prevails by less than three votes, under our ruling in McCavitt, there
5968	5968	must be a new [] election.”) (citing McCavitt, 385 Mass. at 848) The balance of equities therefore
5969	5969	favors Plaintiff Mirra.
5970	5970	CONCLUSION
5971	5971	Plaintiff Mirra respectfully requests that this Honorable Court conduct a de novo review of
5972	5972	the two Ipswich ballots identified herein, and accordingly issue a preliminary injunction enjoining
5973	5973	the swearing-in of alleged Election winner Ms. Kassner.
5974	5974
5975	5975
5976	5976	Dated: December 23, 2022
5977	5977
5978	5978	Respectfully submitted by,
5979	5979
5980	5980	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
5981	5981	Michael J. Sullivan
5982	5982	MA BBO # 487210
5983	5983	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
5984	5984	MA BBO # 703170
5985	5985	Ashcroft Law Firm
5986	5986	200 State Street, 7th Floor
5987	5987	Boston, Massachusetts 02109
5988	5988	T: 617-573-9400
5989	5989	E: msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
5990	5990	E: camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
5991	5991
5992	5992	Attorney for Plaintiff
5993	5993	Leonard Mirra
5994	5994
5995	5995
5996	5996
5997	5997
5998	5998
5999	5999
6000	6000
6001	6001
6002	6002	Date Filed 12/23/2022 6:40 PM
6003	6003	Superior Court - Essex
6004	6004	Docket Number 2277CV012430053 6
6005	6005
6006	6006	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6007	6007
6008	6008	I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the below via
6009	6009	electronic mail on December 23, 2022:
6010	6010	Counsel for Secretary Galvin
6011	6011	Anne Sterman
6012	6012	Adam Hornstine
6013	6013	Office of the Attorney General
6014	6014	One Ashburton Place
6015	6015	Boston, MA 02108
6016	6016	617-963-2524
6017	6017	anne.sterman@state.ma.us
6018	6018	adam.hornstine@state.ma.us
6019	6019
6020	6020	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants
6021	6021	George A. Hall, Jr.
6022	6022	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
6023	6023	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
6024	6024	Boston, MA 02109
6025	6025	617-621-6530
6026	6026	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
6027	6027
6028	6028	Counsel for Rowley Defendants
6029	6029	Yael Magen
6030	6030	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
6031	6031	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
6032	6032	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
6033	6033	781-245-2284 ext.2
6034	6034	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
6035	6035
6036	6036	Counsel for Georgetown
6037	6037	Lauren F. Goldberg
6038	6038	KP Law, P.C.
6039	6039	101 Arch Street, 12th Floor
6040	6040	Boston, MA 02110
6041	6041	(617) 654-1759
6042	6042	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
6043	6043
6044	6044	Counsel for Kristin Kassner, Proposed
6045	6045	Intervenor
6046	6046	Gerald A. McDonough
6047	6047	Attorney-at-Law
6048	6048	13 Hollis Street
6049	6049	Cambridge, MA 02140
6050	6050	(617) 529-1527
6051	6051	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
6052	6052
6053	6053	/s/ J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
6054	6054	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
6055	6055
6056	6056	Date Filed 12/23/2022 6:40 PM
6057	6057	Superior Court - Essex
6058	6058	Docket Number 2277CV012430054
6059	6059
6060	6060	1
6061	6061
6062	6062	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
6063	6063
6064	6064	ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF
6065	6065	THE TRIAL COURT
6066	6066	CIVIL ACTION NO 2277-CV-01243
6067	6067	___________________________________
6068	6068	)
6069	6069	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA , )
6070	6070	)
6071	6071	Plaintiff, )
6072	6072	)
6073	6073	v. )
6074	6074	)
6075	6075	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF )
6076	6076	VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH RE GISTRARS )
6077	6077	OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN )
6078	6078	OF IPSWICH, TOWN OF ROWLEY )
6079	6079	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS , TOWN CLERK )
6080	6080	FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY, and )
6081	6081	WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official )
6082	6082	capacity as Secretary of the )
6083	6083	Commonwealth of Massachusetts, )
6084	6084	)
6085	6085	Defendants. )
6086	6086	__________________________________ _)
6087	6087
6088	6088	THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT KRISTIN KASSNER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
6089	6089
6090	6090	Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the
6091	6091	Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as this Court’s
6092	6092	order issued earlier today, Third Party Defendant and Intervener
6093	6093	Kristin E. Kassner (“Ms. Kassner”), the certified State
6094	6094	Representative-Elect for the Second Essex District , hereby moves
6095	6095	to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Leonard Mirra (“Mr.
6096	6096	Mirra”). As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in Support
6097	6097	of Kristin Kassner’s Motion to Dismiss, t he basis for Ms.
6098	6098	Kassner’s motion is that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the
6099	6099	subject matter of this dispute and Mr. Mirra has failed to state
6100	6100	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6101	6101	Superior Court - Essex
6102	6102	Docket Number 2277CV01243
6103	6103	8
6104	6104	12/27/20220055
6105	6105	RECEIVED
6106	6106
6107	6107	2
6108	6108
6109	6109	a claim for which relief can be granted.
6110	6110	WHEREFORE, Kristin Kassner respectfully requests that this
6111	6111	Honorable Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint , and permit
6112	6112	the Massachusetts House of Representatives, the only
6113	6113	governmental body with jurisdiction over this election contest,
6114	6114	to address the matter .
6115	6115	Respectfully submitted,
6116	6116
6117	6117	KRISTIN E. KASSNER,
6118	6118	By her attorney,
6119	6119
6120	6120	Gerald A. McDonough
6121	6121	__________________________________
6122	6122	Gerald A. McDonough, Esq.
6123	6123	BBO #559802
6124	6124	13 Hollis Street
6125	6125	Cambridge, MA 02140
6126	6126	(617) 529-1527
6127	6127	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
6128	6128
6129	6129	Dated: December 27, 2022
6130	6130
6131	6131
6132	6132	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6133	6133
6134	6134	I, Gerald A McDonough, certify that I have served the attached
6135	6135	by causing copies to be delivered electronically to:
6136	6136
6137	6137
6138	6138	Counsel for Plaintiff Leonard Mirra:
6139	6139	Michael J. Sullivan, Esq.
6140	6140	J. Christopher Amrhein, Esq.
6141	6141	Ashcroft Law Firm
6142	6142	200 State Street, 7h Floor
6143	6143	Boston, MA 02109
6144	6144	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
6145	6145	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
6146	6146
6147	6147	Counsel for Defendant William Galvin:
6148	6148	Anne Sterman, Esq.
6149	6149	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6150	6150	Superior Court - Essex
6151	6151	Docket Number 2277CV012430056
6152	6152
6153	6153	3
6154	6154
6155	6155	Adam Hornstine, Esq.
6156	6156	Assistant Attorneys General
6157	6157	Office of the Attorney General
6158	6158	One Ashburton Place
6159	6159	Boston, MA 02108
6160	6160	Anne.Sterman@mass.gov
6161	6161	Adam.Hornstine@mass.gov
6162	6162
6163	6163	Counsel for Georgetown Defendants:
6164	6164	Lauren Goldberg, Esq.
6165	6165	KP Law, PC
6166	6166	101 Arch Street
6167	6167	Boston, MA 02110
6168	6168	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
6169	6169
6170	6170	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants:
6171	6171	George A. Hall, Jr.
6172	6172	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
6173	6173	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
6174	6174	Boston, MA 02109
6175	6175	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
6176	6176
6177	6177	Counsel for Rowley Defendants:
6178	6178	Yael Magen
6179	6179	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
6180	6180	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
6181	6181	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
6182	6182	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
6183	6183
6184	6184
6185	6185	Gerald A. McDonough
6186	6186	Gerald A. McDonough
6187	6187
6188	6188
6189	6189	Dated: December 27, 2022
6190	6190
6191	6191
6192	6192
6193	6193
6194	6194	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6195	6195	Superior Court - Essex
6196	6196	Docket Number 2277CV012430057
6197	6197
6198	6198	1
6199	6199
6200	6200	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
6201	6201
6202	6202	ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF
6203	6203	THE TRIAL COURT
6204	6204	CIVIL ACTION NO 2277-CV-01243
6205	6205	___________________________________
6206	6206	)
6207	6207	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA , )
6208	6208	)
6209	6209	Plaintiff, )
6210	6210	)
6211	6211	v. )
6212	6212	)
6213	6213	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF )
6214	6214	VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH RE GISTRARS )
6215	6215	OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN )
6216	6216	OF IPSWICH, TOWN OF ROWLEY )
6217	6217	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS , TOWN CLERK )
6218	6218	FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY, and )
6219	6219	WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official )
6220	6220	capacity as Secretary of the )
6221	6221	Commonwealth of Massachusetts, )
6222	6222	)
6223	6223	Defendants. )
6224	6224	__________________________________ _)
6225	6225
6226	6226	MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF KRISTIN KASSNER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
6227	6227
6228	6228	Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the
6229	6229	Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as this Court’s
6230	6230	order issued earlier today, Third Party Defendant and Intervener
6231	6231	Kristin E. Kassner (“Ms. Kassner”), the certified State
6232	6232	Representative-Elect for the Second Essex District, has moved to
6233	6233	dismiss the Complaint in the above-captioned matter filed by
6234	6234	Plaintiff Leonard Mirra (“Mr. Mirra”) . As set forth below, the
6235	6235	basis for Ms. Kassner’s motion is that this Court lacks
6236	6236	jurisdiction over the subject matter of this dispute and Mr.
6237	6237	Mirra, therefore, has failed to state a claim for which relief
6238	6238	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6239	6239	Superior Court - Essex
6240	6240	Docket Number 2277CV01243
6241	6241	8.1
6242	6242	12/27/20220058
6243	6243	RECEIVED
6244	6244
6245	6245	2
6246	6246
6247	6247	can be granted.
6248	6248	Statement of Facts
6249	6249	1. Mr. Mirra, the Republican Party candidate for State
6250	6250	Representative in the Second Essex District, faced off against
6251	6251	Ms. Kassner, the Democratic Party candidate, in the election
6252	6252	held on November 8, 2022.
6253	6253	2. After the counting of the ballots by the towns that
6254	6254	comprise the Second Essex District , Mr. Mirra was judged to have
6255	6255	received 11,754 votes, ten more votes that Ms. Kassner’s total
6256	6256	of 11,744 votes.
6257	6257	3. On November 22, 2022, As a result of the closeness of
6258	6258	the election, Ms. Kassner filed district-wide recount petitions
6259	6259	in conformity with the law with the Secretary of the
6260	6260	Commonwealth.
6261	6261	4. On November 30, 2022, the Secretary presented to the
6262	6262	Executive Council the results of all the elections that took
6263	6263	place on November 8th.
6264	6264	5. Because those results demonstrated that the difference
6265	6265	in votes between Mr. Mirra and Ms. Kassner was less than one -
6266	6266	half of one percent of all ballots cast, and because Ms. Kassner
6267	6267	had petitioned for a recount of the election, the Secretary
6268	6268	issued an order for a district-wide recount in the Second Essex
6269	6269	District.
6270	6270	6. Subsequently, the six towns in the Second Essex District
6271	6271	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6272	6272	Superior Court - Essex
6273	6273	Docket Number 2277CV012430059
6274	6274
6275	6275	3
6276	6276
6277	6277	conducted recounts of the election for State Representative over
6278	6278	a four-day period, from December 5th to December 8th, 2022.
6279	6279	7. At the conclusion of those recounts, Ms. Kassner’s total
6280	6280	votes – 11,763 – exceeded Mr. Mirra’s total votes – 11,762 – by
6281	6281	one vote.
6282	6282	8. After the Secretary presented th ose results to the
6283	6283	Executive Council on December 14, 2022, the Council certified
6284	6284	the results. The Governor of the Commonwealth, Charles D. Baker,
6285	6285	signed the certification that very same day , and the Secretary
6286	6286	has issued that certification to Ms. Kassner.
6287	6287	9. Mr. Mirra took no action until he filed this complaint
6288	6288	electronically in the Essex Superior Court at 4:37 p.m. on
6289	6289	Wednesday, December 21, 2022, after the close of business. Ms.
6290	6290	Kassner did not learn of the filing until the following day,
6291	6291	December 22, 2022.
6292	6292	10. The only remaining task for the Secretary, or any other
6293	6293	entity within the Executive Branch, is the ministerial task for
6294	6294	transmitting the certific ation of all the candidates who
6295	6295	prevailed in the election to the House of Representatives on
6296	6296	January 4, 2023.
6297	6297	11. Ms. Kassner intends to attend the proceedings of the
6298	6298	House of Representatives on January 4, 2023, at which time she
6299	6299	will present her certifica tion to the presiding officer.
6300	6300	Argument
6301	6301	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6302	6302	Superior Court - Essex
6303	6303	Docket Number 2277CV012430060
6304	6304
6305	6305	4
6306	6306
6307	6307	Since its inception, the Massachusetts Constitution has
6308	6308	expressly provided that “[t]he house of representatives shall be
6309	6309	the judge of the returns, elections, and qualifications of its
6310	6310	own members.” G.L. Const. Pt. 2, C. 1, § 3, Art. 10 . As far back
6311	6311	as 1808, the Supreme Judicial Court viewed the authority of the
6312	6312	House of Representatives as follows:
6313	6313	I consider the House of Representatives not only as an
6314	6314	integral branch of the legislature, and as an essential
6315	6315	part of the two houses in convention, but also as a court
6316	6316	having final and exclusive cognizance of all matters
6317	6317	within its jurisdiction, for the purposes for which it
6318	6318	was vested with jurisdiction. It has jurisdiction of the
6319	6319	election of its members ; of the choice of its officers;
6320	6320	of its rules of proceeding; and of all contempts against
6321	6321	the house, either in its presence, or by violating the
6322	6322	constitutional privileges of its members. When the house
6323	6323	is proceeding as a court, it has, exclusively, authority
6324	6324	to decide whether the matter before it be or be not
6325	6325	within its jurisdiction, without the legal control of
6326	6326	any other court.
6327	6327
6328	6328	Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 24 (1808) .
6329	6329	Since the inception of the Massachusetts Constitution, t he
6330	6330	Supreme Judicial Court has be en consistent in that view of the
6331	6331	jurisdiction of the House of Representatives regarding the
6332	6332	election of its members. In Peabody v. School Committee of
6333	6333	Boston, 115 Mass. 383 (1874), for example, the Court stated that
6334	6334	it is the duty of courts, “in the first place, to
6335	6335	consider whether the case stated by the parties is within its
6336	6336	jurisdiction.” See id. at 383-384. The Peabody Court went on to
6337	6337	state that:
6338	6338	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6339	6339	Superior Court - Essex
6340	6340	Docket Number 2277CV012430061
6341	6341
6342	6342	5
6343	6343
6344	6344	It cannot be doubted that either branch of the
6345	6345	legislature is thus made the final and exclusive judge
6346	6346	of all questions, whether of law or of fact, respecting
6347	6347	such elections, returns or qualifications, so far as
6348	6348	they are involved in the determination of the right of
6349	6349	any person to be a member thereof; and that while the
6350	6350	Constitution, so far as it contains any provisions which
6351	6351	are applicable, is to be the guide, the decision of
6352	6352	either house upon the question whether any person is or
6353	6353	is not entitled to a seat t herein cannot be disputed or
6354	6354	revised by any court or authority whatever.
6355	6355
6356	6356	Id. at 384, citing Coffin v. Coffin, supra.
6357	6357	Thereafter, in Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516 (1916), the
6358	6358	Supreme Judicial Court reiterated this view:
6359	6359	The power to pass upon the election and qualification of
6360	6360	its own members thus is vested exclusively in each branch
6361	6361	of the General Court. No other department of the
6362	6362	government has any authority under the Constitution to
6363	6363	adjudicate upon that subject. The grant of power is
6364	6364	comprehensive, full and complete. It is necessarily
6365	6365	exclusive, for the Constitution contains no words
6366	6366	permitting either branch of the Legislature to delegate
6367	6367	or share that power. It must remain where the sovereign
6368	6368	authority of the state has placed it. General phrases
6369	6369	elsewhere in the Constitution, which in the absence of
6370	6370	an explicit imposition of power and duty would permit
6371	6371	the enactment of laws to govern the subject, cannot
6372	6372	narrow or impair the positive declaration of the
6373	6373	people's will that this power is vested solely in the
6374	6374	Senate and House respectively. It is a prerogative
6375	6375	belonging to each House, which each alone can exercise.
6376	6376	It is not susceptible of being deputed.
6377	6377
6378	6378	Id. at 517; see also Opinion of the Justices , 375 Mass. 795, 815
6379	6379	(1978) (“The constitutional authority of each branch of the
6380	6380	Legislature to judge the elections, returns, and qualifications
6381	6381	of its members is exclusive, comprehensive, and final ”);
6382	6382	Greenwood v. Registrars of Voters of the City of Fitchburg , 282
6383	6383	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6384	6384	Superior Court - Essex
6385	6385	Docket Number 2277CV012430062
6386	6386
6387	6387	6
6388	6388
6389	6389	Mass. 74, 79 (1933) (same).
6390	6390	The Supreme Judicial Court more recently reiterated its
6391	6391	view regarding the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives
6392	6392	in Wheatley v. Secretary of the Commonwea lth, 439 Mass. 849
6393	6393	(2003). The facts in Wheatley are quite similar to the facts in
6394	6394	this case. After Patrick was declared the winner of the recount
6395	6395	of a State Representative election , the Secretary transmitted
6396	6396	those returns to the Acting Governor and the Council, who issued
6397	6397	a certification of election to Patrick. On the same day as the
6398	6398	Acting Governor and the Council issued the certification,
6399	6399	Patrick’s opponent, Wheatley, filed a complaint in Superior
6400	6400	Court. In that action, the court denied Wheatley’s request for
6401	6401	injunctive relief, but ordered a new election. When the House
6402	6402	assembled for the 2003 -2004 legislative session, Patrick
6403	6403	presented his certification to the House, which referred the
6404	6404	matter to a special committee , and the House itself resolved the
6405	6405	matter by a vote on March 20, 2003.
6406	6406	The Supreme Judicial Court became involved in the dispute
6407	6407	through the Secretary’s application for relief from judgment,
6408	6408	seeking to avoid another election that had been ordered by the
6409	6409	Superior Court. In its Decision, the Wheatley Court restated its
6410	6410	previous jurisprudence regarding the House’s authority:
6411	6411	General Laws c. 56, § 59 , grants the Superior Court both
6412	6412	the jurisdiction to enforce the various laws regulating
6413	6413	the conduct of elections and the power to grant equitable
6414	6414	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6415	6415	Superior Court - Essex
6416	6416	Docket Number 2277CV012430063
6417	6417
6418	6418	7
6419	6419
6420	6420	relief to those injured by violations of those
6421	6421	laws. Although § 59 was enacted in 1946, see St.1946, c.
6422	6422	537, § 11, the judiciary's power to provide a remedy for
6423	6423	persons harmed by defects in election procedures was
6424	6424	recognized as far back as the beginning of the Nineteenth
6425	6425	Century. See Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 35 (1808) (“an
6426	6426	elector illegally deprived of his right of voting, may
6427	6427	demand redress for this wrong against the selectmen by
6428	6428	a suit at law”). A court's power to remedy election
6429	6429	irregularities, however, has a limitation: Part II, c.
6430	6430	1, § 3, art. 10, provides that “[t]he house of
6431	6431	representatives shall be the judge of the returns,
6432	6432	elections, and qualifications of its own members....”
6433	6433	This language is as old as the Constitution itself,
6434	6434	having remained unchanged since that docum ent was
6435	6435	adopted by the people in June of 1780.
6436	6436
6437	6437	See id. at 853 (footnote deleted).
6438	6438
6439	6439	As the Wheatley Court noted, the House’s role as the sole
6440	6440	arbiter of a petitioner’s claim to a seat as a State
6441	6441	Representative “is by now firmly settled at a matter of State
6442	6442	constitutional law.” See id. at 854. As the Court further noted,
6443	6443	although the judiciary may, under § 59, order that a certificate
6444	6444	of election issue to a particular candidate, “that certificate
6445	6445	is nothing more than evidence that a candidate may present to
6446	6446	the House in support of a claim of election.” See id. “The House
6447	6447	and only the House, has jurisdicti on to resolve such a claim.”
6448	6448	Id. In a different context, a municipal election in the City of
6449	6449	Boston, where the statute was similar to the constitutional
6450	6450	provision at issue here, the Supreme Judicial Court held that an
6451	6451	election dispute is in control of the court only “[u]p to the
6452	6452	point that a certificate has been issued.” See Banks v. Election
6453	6453	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6454	6454	Superior Court - Essex
6455	6455	Docket Number 2277CV012430064
6456	6456
6457	6457	8
6458	6458
6459	6459	Commissioners of Boston , 327 Mass. 509, 512 (1951).
6460	6460	Mr. Mirra’s failure to commence this litigation until after
6461	6461	the Governor and Council issued the certificate to Ms. Kassner ,
6462	6462	therefore, is fatal to his attempt to vest jurisdiction of this
6463	6463	dispute in the Superior Court. It should also be noted that in
6464	6464	the case that Mr. Mirra had relied on extensively , Alicea v.
6465	6465	Southbridge Registrars of Voters , et al., Mass. Super. Ct.
6466	6466	(Worcester) No. 1085 -CV-02624, Alicea initially filed the
6467	6467	complaint on November 29, 2010, well in advance of the
6468	6468	certification, and his opponent, Peter Durant, filed a
6469	6469	counterclaim. Consequently, in that dispute, both of the parties
6470	6470	accepted the jurisdiction of the court prior to the
6471	6471	certification of the election , and no appellate court was called
6472	6472	on to address the constitutional issues raised herein .
6473	6473	Ms. Kassner, possessing a certificate from the Governor and
6474	6474	the Executive Council, intends to present her certificate to the
6475	6475	House at the swearing in of state representative on January 4,
6476	6476	2022. At this time, therefore, the Executive Branch has
6477	6477	completed all of the tasks assigned to it by the Constitution
6478	6478	and the General Laws but one – the ministerial task of
6479	6479	transmitting the election certification to the House on January
6480	6480	4th. See, e.g., G.L. c. 3, §§ 1-3; c. 54, §§ 115-117. As the
6481	6481	case law instructs, pursuant to the Massachusetts Constitution,
6482	6482	it is the House of Representatives, and not the judicial branch,
6483	6483	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6484	6484	Superior Court - Essex
6485	6485	Docket Number 2277CV012430065
6486	6486
6487	6487	9
6488	6488
6489	6489	which is now the sole judge of th is dispute.
6490	6490	WHEREFORE, Kristin Kassner respectfully requests that this
6491	6491	Honorable Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint so that the
6492	6492	Massachusetts House of Representatives, the only governmental
6493	6493	body with jurisdiction over this election contest, may address
6494	6494	the matter.
6495	6495	Respectfully submitted,
6496	6496
6497	6497	KRISTIN E. KASSNER,
6498	6498	By her attorney,
6499	6499
6500	6500	Gerald A. McDonough
6501	6501	__________________________________
6502	6502	Gerald A. McDonough, Esq.
6503	6503	BBO #559802
6504	6504	13 Hollis Street
6505	6505	Cambridge, MA 02140
6506	6506	(617) 529-1527
6507	6507	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
6508	6508
6509	6509	Dated: December 27, 2022
6510	6510
6511	6511
6512	6512	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6513	6513
6514	6514	I, Gerald A McDonough, certify that I have served the attached
6515	6515	by causing copies to be delivered electronically to:
6516	6516
6517	6517
6518	6518	Counsel for Plaintiff Leonard Mirra:
6519	6519	Michael J. Sullivan, Esq.
6520	6520	J. Christopher Amrhein, Esq.
6521	6521	Ashcroft Law Firm
6522	6522	200 State Street, 7h Floor
6523	6523	Boston, MA 02109
6524	6524	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
6525	6525	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
6526	6526
6527	6527	Counsel for Defendant William Galvin:
6528	6528	Anne Sterman, Esq.
6529	6529	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6530	6530	Superior Court - Essex
6531	6531	Docket Number 2277CV012430066
6532	6532
6533	6533	10
6534	6534
6535	6535	Adam Hornstine, Esq.
6536	6536	Assistant Attorneys General
6537	6537	Office of the Attorney General
6538	6538	One Ashburton Place
6539	6539	Boston, MA 02108
6540	6540	Anne.Sterman@mass.gov
6541	6541	Adam.Hornstine@mass.gov
6542	6542
6543	6543	Counsel for Georgetown Defendants:
6544	6544	Lauren Goldberg, Esq.
6545	6545	KP Law, PC
6546	6546	101 Arch Street
6547	6547	Boston, MA 02110
6548	6548	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
6549	6549
6550	6550	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants:
6551	6551	George A. Hall, Jr.
6552	6552	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
6553	6553	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
6554	6554	Boston, MA 02109
6555	6555	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
6556	6556
6557	6557	Counsel for Rowley Defendants:
6558	6558	Yael Magen
6559	6559	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
6560	6560	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
6561	6561	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
6562	6562	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
6563	6563
6564	6564
6565	6565	Gerald A. McDonough
6566	6566	Gerald A. McDonough
6567	6567
6568	6568
6569	6569	Dated: December 27, 2022
6570	6570
6571	6571
6572	6572
6573	6573
6574	6574	Date Filed 12/27/2022 1:46 PM
6575	6575	Superior Court - Essex
6576	6576	Docket Number 2277CV012430067 0068 rpenor <..:oun -tssex
6577	6577	,cket Number2277CV01243
6578	6578	'
6579	6579	COMMONWEAL TH OF MASSACHUSETTS
6580	6580	ESSEX, SS
6581	6581	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
6582	6582	Plaintiff,
6583	6583	SUPERIOR COURT
6584	6584	C.A. No. 2277CV01243-B '
6585	6585	!
6586	6586	I
6587	6587	10
6588	6588	I
6589	6589	~2/28/2022
6590	6590	V.
6591	6591	TO\VN OF GEORGETO\VN REGISTRARS OF
6592	6592	VOTERS; TOWN
6593	6593	OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS
6594	6594	OF VOTERS; TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN
6595	6595	OF IPSWICH; TOWN OF ROWLEY
6596	6596	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS;
6597	6597	TOWN CLERK
6598	6598	FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY, and WILLIAM
6599	6599	F. GAL VrN, in his official capacity as Secretary
6600	6600	of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
6601	6601	Defendants.
6602	6602	I
6603	6603	I .
6604	6604	I
6605	6605	'
6606	6606	CEIVEC1
6607	6607	RESPONSE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH TO PLAINTIFF'S
6608	6608	ElERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
6609	6609	AND LIMITED DE NOVO REVIE'NiOF
6610	6610	T\VO CHALLENGED BALLOTS. AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STAYING
6611	6611	SWEARING-IN. AND TO INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO DISMISS
6612	6612	Defendant \Villiam F. Galvin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Cominonwealth,
6613	6613	hereby submits his response to (1)
6614	6614	Plaintiffs motion for expedited and limited de nojo re:,Jw o)
6615	6615	two challenged ballots and preliminary injunction staying swearing-in and (2) Intervenor';
6616	6616	motion to dismiss. In particular, he submits this memorandum to address the questions
6617	6617	of liw
6618	6618	that the Court asked him to address to assist the Court with its resolution of these motions.
6619	6619	i
6620	6620	I.
6621	6621	!
6622	6622	THE ABILITY OF THE COURT TO ADDRESS THIS SUIT IS CONSlRAJ.NED
6623	6623	BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION
6624	6624	1
6625	6625	'
6626	6626	'
6627	6627	As a threshold matter, this Court must resolve the q~estion of whether it has J·urisdiction
6628	6628	, I I
6629	6629	I . , !
6630	6630	to entertain Plaintiffs suit and his specific request for injunctive relief concerning this electjon
6631	6631	1 0069 iperior t.:ourt -1:.ssex
6632	6632	,cket Number 2277CV01243
6633	6633	I I
6634	6634	for state representative. The Secretary's view is that -at least for now -the Court has
6635	6635	1
6636	6636	,
6637	6637	I I ,
6638	6638	jurisdiction to make legal determinations and to issue certain equitable orders pursua/it to lits
6639	6639	I I I I
6640	6640	authority under General Laws c. 56, § 59, which grants the ~uperior Court both the jJrisd;ction
6641	6641	I : I
6642	6642	to enforce the various laws regulating the conduct of elections and the power to granJ equitable
6643	6643	relief to those injured by violations
6644	6644	of those laws. But these equitable powers are lijited :!bJ the
6645	6645	state constitution in one critical respect.
6646	6646	1
6647	6647	"
6648	6648	The Massachusetts Constitution, see Part II, c. 1, § 3, art. 10, provides that "[t, he i\ouse
6649	6649	of representatives shall be the judge of the returns, elections, and qualifications of its lown'!
6650	6650	I 'I
6651	6651	members .... " Under this provision, the House is vested with the authority to determiJe wltom to
6652	6652	' I ,I I
6653	6653	seat among its members after an election. As the Supreme Judicial Court has explain~d, the
6654	6654	"House's role
6655	6655	as the sole arbiter of a Petitioner's claim to a seat as a representative is by n!ol
6656	6656	firmly settled as a matter
6657	6657	of State constitutional law." Wheatley v. Sec'y of Com., 439 M,u.
6658	6658	,I
6659	6659	849, 854 (2003); see also Opinion of the Justices, 375 Mass. 795, 815 (1978) ("The
6660	6660	constitutional authority
6661	6661	of each branch of the Legislature to judge the elections, returns, and
6662	6662	' '
6663	6663	"
6664	6664	'
6665	6665	' qualifications of its members is exclusive, comprehensive, and final"); Greenwood v: Regis ars
6666	6666	of Voters of Fitchburg, 282 Mass. 74, 79 (1933) ("Jurisdiction to pass upon the electibn a/J
6667	6667	i
6668	6668	11
6669	6669	I
6670	6670	' I
6671	6671	qualification of its own members is thus vested exclusively in the House of Representatives");
6672	6672	I 1
6673	6673	l :•
6674	6674	Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 517 (1916) ("The power to pass upon the election and :I
6675	6675	I 'I
6676	6676	qualification of its own members thus is vested exclusively in each branch of the GeJeraljfCourt.
6677	6677	I )
6678	6678	upon that subject"). I
6679	6679	,:
6680	6680	Accordingly, under General Laws c. 56, § 59, this Court can ultimately "order that a,
6681	6681	I : ,
6682	6682	I :
6683	6683	certificate of election issue to a particular individual." Wheatley, 439 Mass. at 854. Or a•; a
6684	6684	2
6685	6685	,' '
6686	6686	I, 〰㜰 ,perior c:ourt -cssex
6687	6687	,cket Number 2277CV01243
6688	6688	'
6689	6689	temporary measure, it can likewise order the Secretary to refrain from transmitting el~ction
6690	6690	) l I
6691	6691	• I '
6692	6692	: , I
6693	6693	results for this race to the clerk of the House ofRepresentat1.·ves. But, as the Court eriiphasi ed iu
6694	6694	i i !
6695	6695	Wheatley, such a "certificate is nothing more than evidence that a candidate may pre~ent to ,the I
6696	6696	! I I
6697	6697	House in support of a claim of election." Id. Ultimatelv. it is for the House to detern'iine ~horn
6698	6698	- J. I 'I
6699	6699	to seat, "and only the House, has jurisdiction to resolve such a claim" in a contested ~lect+l
6700	6700	(absent an alleged violation of federal law). Id. j ,
6701	6701	j ~
6702	6702	' '
6703	6703	So as a practical matter, this Court retains jurisdiction under General Laws c. p6, Q :,9 to
6704	6704	I I
6705	6705	issue certain equitable orders pertaining to election certificates unless and until the Hbuse'
6706	6706	:
6707	6707	exercises its prerogative under Part II, c. 1, § 3, art. 10 of the Constitution. But at thJ end:ofthe
6708	6708	. ! l l
6709	6709	day, the newly sworn in House of Representatives is tasked with determining whom io se~t in
6710	6710	this case.
6711	6711	If the House were to exercise this constitutional power after it is sworn in Jnd duil
6712	6712	constituted on January 4, 2023, this Court would lack jurisdiction to review such a dLisjn !by
6713	6713	the House. Id. at 856 (describing House's decision to seat a member after a disputed elec;Jn as
6714	6714	"umeviewable"
6715	6715	by judiciary). To date, the House has not determined whom to seat
6716	6716	7 nor,cJuld
6717	6717	I i I
6718	6718	it do so until January 4, 2023. As such, the Court for now retains the power to act as perrt1itted
6719	6719	I
6720	6720	by the Constitution and by statute.
6721	6721	' l I
6722	6722	II. LEGAL ISSUES CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PREL~.Mir,,1RY
6723	6723	INJUNCTIVE RELIEF : :
6724	6724	! '
6725	6725	l J ,
6726	6726	Plaintiff asks this Court to temporarily enjoin the swearing in of the Interventjr an\! to
6727	6727	· 1 ; I
6728	6728	order that Plaintiff remain in office while this legal process unfolds. As noted during' the ,hearing
6729	6729	on December 27, 2023, the House
6730	6730	of Representatives is not a party to this suit, and ~der\Plrt II,
6731	6731	I ', I
6732	6732	c. 1, § 3, art. 10 of the Constitution, this Court likely cannot order the House to refrai~ fr◊,
6733	6733	! ' l
6734	6734	seating a member. At most, the Court could-using its equitable powers under Gene\:-al r.:ais c.
6735	6735	! , I
6736	6736	56, § 59-temporarily order the Secretary to refrain from transmitting election results to lh~
6737	6737	3 0071 1penor court -1:::ssex
6738	6738	,cket Number 2277CV01243
6739	6739	'
6740	6740	' j i
6741	6741	I , .
6742	6742	House clerk. Under this scenario, unless and until (I) the Court ordered the Secretary to 1rahsmit!
6743	6743	election results to the House clerk
6744	6744	or (2) the House exerciJd its power under Part II b. 1 '§ 3
6745	6745	j , I '1 : ,
6746	6746	art. 10 of the Constitution to judge the election of this seat, fhe redistricted seat contel'ted :!nlthis
6747	6747	election would remain vacant. ' I
6748	6748	Still, this Court should only issue temporary equitable relief if Plaintiff can satisfy.his
6749	6749	that "should not
6750	6750	be granted unless the plaintiffs [make] a clear showing of entitlemenl ,
6751	6751	thereto." Student No. 9 v. Bd.
6752	6752	of Educ., 440 Mass. 752, 762 (2004). To make this Jowing, the
6753	6753	plaintiff must demonstrate (
6754	6754	1) that he has a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) tht he Jill ,
6755	6755	suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and (3) that, in light of the 1Jelih6jd of ;
6756	6756	I I
6757	6757	success on the merits, the risk of irreparable harm to plaintiffs outweighs the potential har
6758	6758	1
6759	6759	m to
6760	6760	the defendant in granting the injunction. Tri-Ne! Mgmt., Inc.
6761	6761	v. Bd. of Health of Balstalb, 433
6762	6762	Mass. 217, 219 (2001). In addition, where, as here, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin goveLm;,nJal
6763	6763	action, the Court must "determine that the requested order promotes the public intere!t,
6764	6764	m~
6765	6765	alternatively, that the equitable relief will not adversely affect the public." Cote-Whitacre v.
6766	6766	!
6767	6767	Dep't of Pub. Health, 446 Mass. 350,357 (2006) (quotation marks omitted). ' '
6768	6768	!
6769	6769	The Secretary notes that Plaintiff has not submitted any admissible evidence with hi~
6770	6770	' '
6771	6771	motion, let alone evidence that would establish that extraordinary injunctive relief is approp~iate
6772	6772	I •
6773	6773	here. As the Town Defendants will likely explain in their responses to Plaintiffs mohon,
6774	6774	1
6775	6775	!Jey
6776	6776	worked hard to ensure that this election and subsequent recount were administered frLly,:)irly,
6777	6777	and consistently with state law. Accordingly, the Secretary reserves the right to oppdse .: I
6778	6778	Plaintiffs motion ifhe submits evidence in accordance with what Rule 65 requires. f hat,
6779	6779	Plaintiff delayed in filing this suit -and in seeking injunctive relief -only compounds
6780	6780	tho
6781	6781	4
6782	6782	i
6783	6783	!.
6784	6784	I
6785	6785	I ' 0072 ,penor t.;ourt -tssex
6786	6786	,cket Number 2277CV01243
6787	6787	difficulty of the Secretary and the Court in assessing the merits of this motion. See A!lexa'n er &
6788	6788	. I --~
6789	6789	Alexander. Inc. v. Danahy, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 488, 494-95 (1986) ("Unexplained delly i9
6790	6790	1
6791	6791	.
6792	6792	seeking relief for allegedly wrongful conduct may indicate ln absence of irreparable hanri a d
6793	6793	I ,
6794	6794	may make an injunction based upon that conduct inappropriate"). I
6795	6795	Date: December 28, 2022
6796	6796	Respectfully submitted,
6797	6797	MAURA HEALEY
6798	6798	ATTORNEY:GENERAL
6799	6799	Isl Adam Hornstine
6800	6800	Anne Sterman (BBO# 650426)
6801	6801	Adam Hornstine (BBO# 666296)
6802	6802	Assistant Attorneys General
6803	6803	Office
6804	6804	of the Attorney General
6805	6805	One Ashburton Place
6806	6806	Boston,
6807	6807	MA 02108
6808	6808	Adam.Hornstine@mass.gov
6809	6809	617-963-2048
6810	6810	Anne.Sterman@mass.gov
6811	6811	617-963-2524
6812	6812	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6813	6813	'
6814	6814	I hereby certify that on December 28, 2022, I filed the attached document(s) througli the
6815	6815	Electronic Filing Service Provider (Provider) and service will
6816	6816	be sent electronically tb regislered
6817	6817	participants and that paper copies will
6818	6818	be sent to those indicated as non-registered particiP,arits by
6819	6819	first-class mai I : I
6820	6820	Isl Adam Hornstine
6821	6821	Adam Hornstine
6822	6822	Assistant Attorney General
6823	6823	5
6824	6824	, I
6825	6825	' . '
6826	6826	I i
6827	6827	', I
6828	6828	I ,
6829	6829	'
6830	6830	,·
6831	6831	I
6832	6832	I,,
6833	6833	I :
6834	6834	,:
6835	6835	i
6836	6836	I .
6837	6837	i,
6838	6838	!'' 1
6839	6839
6840	6840	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
6841	6841
6842	6842	ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
6843	6843	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2277-CV-01243
6844	6844
6845	6845
6846	6846	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
6847	6847
6848	6848	Plaintiff,
6849	6849
6850	6850	v.
6851	6851
6852	6852	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF
6853	6853	VOTERS,
6854	6854	TOWN OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
6855	6855	TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH,
6856	6856	TOWN OF ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
6857	6857	TOWN CLERK FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY,
6858	6858	and
6859	6859	WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as
6860	6860	Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
6861	6861
6862	6862	Defendants,
6863	6863
6864	6864	and
6865	6865
6866	6866	KRISTIN KASSNER,
6867	6867
6868	6868	Intervenor.
6869	6869
6870	6870
6871	6871	OPPOSITION TO INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO DISMISS
6872	6872
6873	6873	Plaintiff Leonard Mirra hereby submits this opposition (“Opposition”) to Intervenor Kristin
6874	6874	Kassner’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) and accompanying memorandum of law in support of
6875	6875	the Motion (“Memorandum”).
6876	6876	Preliminary Statement
6877	6877	The entire basis of Ms. Kassner’s Motion and Memorandum is that this Court lacks
6878	6878	jurisdiction over this Election contest. This argument holds no water at this juncture.
6879	6879	Date Filed 12/28/2022 12:13 PM
6880	6880	Superior Court - Essex
6881	6881	Docket Number 2277CV01243
6882	6882	120073
6883	6883	RECEIVED 2
6884	6884
6885	6885	Section 59 of Chapter 56 of the Massachusetts General Laws confers to the Superior Court
6886	6886	broad “jurisdiction of civil actions to enforce the provisions of chapters fifty to fifty-six,
6887	6887	inclusive”—the election statutes—and gives the Superior Court the power to “award relief
6888	6888	formerly available in equity or by mandamus.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 56, § 59 (“Section 59”). There
6889	6889	is no Massachusetts law or authority that strips this Court of its broad jurisdiction at this stage in
6890	6890	the litigation, or to suggest that no such jurisdiction exists at this stage in the matter.
6891	6891	Accordingly, Ms. Kassner’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction should be denied
6892	6892	and this matter should be allowed to proceed.
6893	6893	APPLICABLE LAW
6894	6894	Rule 12(b)(1) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure ensures that a court has
6895	6895	subject matter jurisdiction to hear a matter. Where a Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
6896	6896	seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), the court accepts the factual allegations in the plaintiff’s
6897	6897	complaint, as well as any favorable inferences drawn from them, as true. Audette v. Commonwealth
6898	6898	of Massachusetts, No. 01-01588, 2002 WL 33947185 (Mass. Super. Aug. 12, 2002) (citing
6899	6899	Ginther, v. Commissioner of Ins., 427 Mass. 319, 322 (1998)).
6900	6900	Additionally, Section 59 states the following, in full:
6901	6901	The supreme judicial court and the superior court department of the trial court shall
6902	6902	have jurisdiction of civil actions to enforce the provisions of chapters fifty to fifty-
6903	6903	six, inclusive, and may award relief formerly available in equity or by mandamus.
6904	6904	The supreme judicial court shall also have jurisdiction of any civil action relative
6905	6905	to the division of the commonwealth into congressional, councillor, senatorial, and
6906	6906	representative districts in chapter fifty-seven, but every such action shall be filed
6907	6907	within thirty days after the act establishing such districts has the force of a law.
6908	6908
6909	6909	Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 56, § 59.
6910	6910
6911	6911	Date Filed 12/28/2022 12:13 PM
6912	6912	Superior Court - Essex
6913	6913	Docket Number 2277CV012430074 3
6914	6914
6915	6915	ARGUMENT
6916	6916
6917	6917	I. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 59
6918	6918
6919	6919	Despite the averments proffered by Ms. Kassner, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter
6920	6920	pursuant to Section 59. As such, this Court may conduct a de novo review of the ballots challenged
6921	6921	at the Recount, and may award relief formerly available in equity.
6922	6922	In relevant part, Section 59 states that “the superior department of the trial court shall have
6923	6923	jurisdiction of civil actions to enforce the provisions of chapters fifty to fifty-six, inclusive, and
6924	6924	may award relief formerly available in equity[.]” Id. Here, the Complaint’s allegations and
6925	6925	requested relief both fall squarely within this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 59. See generally
6926	6926	Compl. For example, the Complaint asks this Court to, inter alia, (a) conduct a de novo review of
6927	6927	the ballots challenged in the Election; (b) issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff Mirra is the
6928	6928	winner of the Election, or in the alternative, that the Election is a tie and a special election must be
6929	6929	held; and (c) order that the Election has been contested by Plaintiff Mirra. Compl. at “Prayer for
6930	6930	Relief.”
6931	6931	1
6932	6932	The requested relief is not unique to this case. In fact, there is a litany of Massachusetts
6933	6933	election cases where Massachusetts trial courts have conducted such a review of contested ballots
6934	6934	and issued orders in equity. A few key cases include: McCavitt, 385 Mass. 833; Connolly v.
6935	6935	Secretary of the Commonwealth, 404 Mass. 556 (1989); Colten v. City of Haverhill, 409 Mass. 55
6936	6936	(1991); and Delahunt v. Johnston, 423 Mass. 731 (1996).
6937	6937	2
6938	6938
6939	6939
6940	6940	1
6941	6941	The determination of the legal effect of a ballot is a question of law, McCavitt v. Registrars of
6942	6942	Voters of Brockton, 385 Mass. 833, 839 (1982); Morris v. Board of Registrars of Voters of East
6943	6943	Bridgewater, 362 Mass. 48, 49 (1972), and this Court must make a de novo interpretation of the
6944	6944	voter’s intent when reviewing a disputed ballot. DePetrillo v. Registrars of Voters of Rehoboth,
6945	6945	342 Mass. 13, 14 (1961).
6946	6946	2
6947	6947	The Worcester Superior Court also conducted a similar review in Alicea v. Southbridge
6948	6948	Registrars of Voters, et al., Mass. Super. Ct. No. 1085-CV-02624.
6949	6949	Date Filed 12/28/2022 12:13 PM
6950	6950	Superior Court - Essex
6951	6951	Docket Number 2277CV012430075 4
6952	6952
6953	6953	This Court’s jurisdiction at this juncture as it relates to Plaintiff’s Complaint (and
6954	6954	Emergency Motion) is confirmed by Defendant Secretary Galvin. See Dkt. 10 (Secretary’s
6955	6955	Response to Intervenor’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion). Specifically,
6956	6956	“The Secretary’s view is that – at least for now – the Court has jurisdiction to make legal
6957	6957	determinations and to issue certain equitable orders pursuant to its authority under [Section 59],
6958	6958	which grants the Superior Court both the jurisdiction to enforce the various laws regulating the
6959	6959	conduct of elections and the power to grant equitable relief to those injured by violations of those
6960	6960	laws.” Dkt. 10 at 2.
6961	6961	Nothing in Ms. Kassner’s Motion and Memorandum refutes (or can refute) the point on
6962	6962	which both Plaintiff and the Secretary agree: that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant Section 59.
6963	6963	In an attempt to overcome this sizeable hurdle, Ms. Kassner’s Memorandum strings together a set
6964	6964	of arguments that ignores (1) the relief requested by Plaintiff in the Complaint; and (2) this Court’s
6965	6965	broad jurisdiction to enforce Massachusetts’ election laws and grant relief on the same pursuant to
6966	6966	Section 59. Ms. Kassner argues that the House has exclusive jurisdiction over such a matter and
6967	6967	“shall be the judge of the returns, elections, and qualifications of its own members, as pointed out
6968	6968	in the constitution.” Mass. Const. Pt. 2, C. 1, § 3, art. X. But Ms. Kassner’s lead case, Wheatley,
6969	6969	undercuts the argument in Intervenor’s Memorandum that the House’s jurisdiction means that this
6970	6970	Court cannot have jurisdiction. Mem. at 6–8. The Wheatley court admits that Section 59, “grants
6971	6971	the Superior Court both the jurisdiction to enforce the various laws regulating the conduct of
6972	6972	elections and the power to grant equitable relief to those injured by violations of those laws.”
6973	6973	Wheatley v. Sec’y of Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 849, 853 (2003). What comes next is that the
6974	6974	Wheatley court merely qualifies this Court’s ability to rectify election issues, id. at 854, not strip
6975	6975	this Court of its jurisdiction and ability to conduct a de novo review of challenged ballots and
6976	6976	Date Filed 12/28/2022 12:13 PM
6977	6977	Superior Court - Essex
6978	6978	Docket Number 2277CV012430076 5
6979	6979
6980	6980	award relief formerly available in equity. The Secretary acknowledges this distinction in his
6981	6981	Response to the Motion. See Dkt. 10 at 1–3. Conspicuous in its absence is any authority cited in
6982	6982	Ms. Kassner’s Motion and Memorandum to refute this distinction. The reality of Article 10 is
6983	6983	simple: it does not divest this court of jurisdiction at this juncture, but rather gives the House
6984	6984	jurisdiction over election disputes only after the House has begun taking action on the matter—
6985	6985	which it has not, here. Cf. Alicea, Mass. Super. Ct. No. 1085-CV-02624, Dkt. 18 (“The appellate
6986	6986	courts of the Commonwealth have advised trial judges that in the election recount cases[,] the
6987	6987	contested ballots, if any, should be addressed first by the court.”) (emphasis added).
6988	6988	Ms. Kassner also argues that the Complaint was not timely filed. Mem. at 7–8. This
6989	6989	requires little comment. It is clear from Massachusetts law that Section 59 empowers this Court to
6990	6990	hear this matter at this stage in the proceeding and grant the requested relief in the Complaint, and
6991	6991	that the certification process has no bearing on this Court’s jurisdiction at this juncture because the
6992	6992	House does not have jurisdiction and cannot have jurisdiction until January 4, 2023, a point that
6993	6993	Secretary Galvin states as well. See Dkt. 10 at 3 (“the House has not determined whom to seat –
6994	6994	nor could it do so until January 4, 2023.”; see also Mass. Const. Amend. art. 10 (“The political
6995	6995	year shall begin on the first Wednesday of January instead of the last Wednesday of May, and the
6996	6996	general court shall assemble every year on the said first Wednesday of January, and shall proceed
6997	6997	at that session to make all the elections, and do all the other acts which are by the constitution
6998	6998	required to be made and done[.]”). Furthermore, Ms. Kassner acknowledges that this Court can
6999	6999	issue an election certificate to the challenging candidate pursuant to Section 59, Mem. at 7, and
7000	7000	that she “intends to . . . present her certification” of election to the House on January 4, 2023, Mem.
7001	7001	at 3. Accordingly, whether or not this lawsuit was filed before or after the Recount results were
7002	7002	certified has no bearing on this Court’s jurisdiction in this case, ability to conduct a de novo review
7003	7003	Date Filed 12/28/2022 12:13 PM
7004	7004	Superior Court - Essex
7005	7005	Docket Number 2277CV012430077 6
7006	7006
7007	7007	of the ballots challenged at the Recount, and power to award relief formerly available in equity
7008	7008	(which Plaintiff seeks), or the House’s ability to exercise its jurisdiction starting on January 4,
7009	7009	2023.
7010	7010	II. PLAINTIFF MIRRA HAS A LIKLIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS OF
7011	7011	THE COMPLAINT
7012	7012
7013	7013	The margin of victory after the Recount is ≈0.0041%., or one (1) vote out of a total of
7014	7014	24,155 votes. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9. The number of challenges—roughly 28, as noted during the
7015	7015	preliminary hearing conducted via Zoom on December 27, 2022—far outnumbers the number of
7016	7016	votes that separate Plaintiff Mirra and Ms. Kassner. Plaintiff Mirra’s Complaint addresses
7017	7017	approximately nine (9) ballots that could not only swing the Election in Plaintiff Mirra’s favor, but
7018	7018	also substantially increase the margin of victory for Plaintiff Mirra. Nonetheless, when factoring
7019	7019	in bedrock Massachusetts case law, Plaintiff Mirra’s declaration (Compl. Ex. C), the recount guide
7020	7020	provided by the Secretary (Compl. Ex. B), even if every other protested ballot is determined to
7021	7021	have been properly called, the two Ipswich ballots alone would show that Plaintiff Mirra received
7022	7022	one more vote than Ms. Kassner because the votes were wrongly taken away from Plaintiff Mirra.
7023	7023	See generally Compl.
7024	7024	Given the time constraints with the approaching swearing-in on January 4, 2023, Plaintiff
7025	7025	Mirra filed an Emergency Motion, Dkt. [##], which further narrows that requested de novo
7026	7026	review.
7027	7027	3
7028	7028	A swift review of the contested ballots will show that Plaintiff Mirra was the rightful
7029	7029
7030	7030	3
7031	7031	Plaintiff Mirra e-filed the Compliant on December 21, 2022. Dkt. 1. So as to submit a thorough,
7032	7032	detailed complaint—not a complaint rife with thin allegations—Plaintiff and his representatives
7033	7033	requested from Defendant town officials the Recount minutes shortly after the Recount concluded.
7034	7034	Plaintiff did not receive the minutes from Ipswich until the evening of December 19, 2022, and
7035	7035	did not receive the minutes from Rowley until the afternoon of December 21, 2022 (approximately
7036	7036	one hour before Plaintiff e-filed the Complaint). In short, the Plaintiff did not delay the filing of
7037	7037	his Complaint, filing as soon as the information needed was provided; this is consistent with the
7038	7038	timing required under Massachusetts law.
7039	7039	Date Filed 12/28/2022 12:13 PM
7040	7040	Superior Court - Essex
7041	7041	Docket Number 2277CV012430078 7
7042	7042
7043	7043	winner of both the Election and the Recount, and that Plaintiff’s additional requested relief, e.g.,
7044	7044	declaratory judgment, is appropriate, particularly considering the rulings in McCavitt and
7045	7045	Connolly. See Connolly, 404 Mass. at 568 (“If the ‘winning’ candidate prevails by less than three
7046	7046	votes, under our ruling in McCavitt, there must be a new [] election. (citing McCavitt, 385 Mass.
7047	7047	at 848, 850).
7048	7048	4
7049	7049
7050	7050	CONCLUSION
7051	7051	Plaintiff Mirra respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Ms. Kassner’s Motion
7052	7052	to Dismiss. Plaintiff also requests that this Court exercise its authority under to Section 59 and
7053	7053	conduct a de novo review of the ballots challenged at the Recount, and ultimately award Plaintiff’s
7054	7054	requested (narrow) relief, including temporarily ordering the Secretary to refrain from transmitting
7055	7055	election results to the House clerk—consistent with the Secretary’s response brief, Dkt. 10 at 3–4.
7056	7056
7057	7057
7058	7058	Dated: December 28, 2022
7059	7059
7060	7060	Respectfully submitted by,
7061	7061
7062	7062	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
7063	7063	Michael J. Sullivan
7064	7064	MA BBO # 487210
7065	7065	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
7066	7066	MA BBO # 703170
7067	7067	Ashcroft Law Firm
7068	7068	200 State Street, 7th Floor
7069	7069	Boston, Massachusetts 02109
7070	7070	T: 617-573-9400
7071	7071	E: msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
7072	7072	E: camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
7073	7073
7074	7074	Attorney for Plaintiff
7075	7075	Leonard Mirra
7076	7076
7077	7077
7078	7078	4
7079	7079	In order to expedite the adjudication of this matter, Plaintiff Mirra would be willing to narrow
7080	7080	his requested relief to just a request for de novo review of the contested ballots and declaratory
7081	7081	relief on the same, which includes ordering the Secretary to temporarily refrain from transmitting
7082	7082	the Election results to the House.
7083	7083	Date Filed 12/28/2022 12:13 PM
7084	7084	Superior Court - Essex
7085	7085	Docket Number 2277CV012430079 8
7086	7086
7087	7087	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
7088	7088
7089	7089	I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the below via
7090	7090	electronic mail on December 28, 2022:
7091	7091	Counsel for Secretary Galvin
7092	7092	Anne Sterman
7093	7093	Adam Hornstine
7094	7094	Office of the Attorney General
7095	7095	One Ashburton Place
7096	7096	Boston, MA 02108
7097	7097	617-963-2524
7098	7098	anne.sterman@state.ma.us
7099	7099	adam.hornstine@state.ma.us
7100	7100
7101	7101	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants
7102	7102	George A. Hall, Jr.
7103	7103	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
7104	7104	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
7105	7105	Boston, MA 02109
7106	7106	617-621-6530
7107	7107	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
7108	7108
7109	7109	Counsel for Rowley Defendants
7110	7110	Yael Magen
7111	7111	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
7112	7112	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
7113	7113	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
7114	7114	781-245-2284 ext.2
7115	7115	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
7116	7116
7117	7117	Counsel for Georgetown
7118	7118	Lauren F. Goldberg
7119	7119	KP Law, P.C.
7120	7120	101 Arch Street, 12th Floor
7121	7121	Boston, MA 02110
7122	7122	(617) 654-1759
7123	7123	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
7124	7124
7125	7125	Counsel for Kristin Kassner, Proposed
7126	7126	Intervenor
7127	7127	Gerald A. McDonough
7128	7128	Attorney-at-Law
7129	7129	13 Hollis Street
7130	7130	Cambridge, MA 02140
7131	7131	(617) 529-1527
7132	7132	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
7133	7133
7134	7134	/s/ J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
7135	7135	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
7136	7136
7137	7137	Date Filed 12/28/2022 12:13 PM
7138	7138	Superior Court - Essex
7139	7139	Docket Number 2277CV012430080 1
7140	7140
7141	7141	CO
7142	7142	MMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
7143	7143
7144	7144	ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
7145	7145	C.A NO. 2277CV01243
7146	7146
7147	7147	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
7148	7148
7149	7149	Plaintiff
7150	7150
7151	7151	v.
7152	7152
7153	7153	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS
7154	7154	OF VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH
7155	7155	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK
7156	7156	OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH, TOWN OF
7157	7157	ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
7158	7158	TOWN CLERK FOR THE TOWN OF
7159	7159	ROWLEY, and WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in is
7160	7160	official capacity as Secretary of the
7161	7161	Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
7162	7162
7163	7163	Defendants, and
7164	7164
7165	7165	KRISTIN KASSNER,
7166	7166
7167	7167	Defendant-Intervenor.
7168	7168
7169	7169	MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
7170	7170	PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
7171	7171
7172	7172	I. INTRODUCTION
7173	7173	The Town of Georgetown Registrars of Voters (“Georgetown”), the Town of Ipswich
7174	7174	Registrars of Voters and Town Clerk (“Ipswich”), and the Town of Rowley Registrars of Voters
7175	7175	and Town Clerk (“Rowley”) (collectively, the “Municipal Defendants”), hereby submit this joint
7176	7176	Opposition to Plaintiff Leonard Mirra’s (the “Plaintiff”) Emergency Motion for Expedited and
7177	7177	Limited De Novo Review of Two Challenged Ballots, and Preliminary Injunction Staying
7178	7178	Swearing-In (the “Emergency Motion”).
7179	7179	The Municipal Defendants urge the Court to deny the Emergency Motion, not because
7180	7180	they have an interest in which candidate is seated in the House of Representatives, but only
7181	7181	because they have a strong interest in defending the processes used in conducting the election
7182	7182	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7183	7183	Superior Court - Essex
7184	7184	Docket Number 2277CV01243
7185	7185	170081 2
7186	7186
7187	7187	a
7188	7188	nd the District-wide recount and in ensuring that the will of the voters can be implemented
7189	7189	without delay. It is the position of each of the Municipal Defendants that the election laws and
7190	7190	guidance of the Secretary of the Commonwealth were meticulously followed in the course of the
7191	7191	election and recount, and that those procedures resulted in a fair election that was free from fraud
7192	7192	or undue influence. The will of the voters is paramount, and their votes should not be
7193	7193	disenfranchised simply because the election was decided by a narrow margin. For this reason, as
7194	7194	well as for the substantive reasons set forth herein, the Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion should be
7195	7195	denied.
7196	7196	The Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion should be denied for the following additional reasons,
7197	7197	which will be explained in greater detail below:
7198	7198	1. Th
7199	7199
7200	7200	is seeking a preliminary injunction “enjoining the swearing-in of alleged
7201	7201	Election winner Ms. Kassner.” None of the defendants in this action, however,
7202	7202	has the authority to swear-in Ms. Kassner or any other person to the position of
7203	7203	State Representative. Rather, the Constitution requires that State
7204	7204	Representatives must be sworn in by the Governor and the Governor’s Council
7205	7205	in the presence of the two houses of assembly. MA CONST. Pt. 2, c. 6, Art. 1.
7206	7206	Neither the Governor nor the Governor’s Council are parties to this action and
7207	7207	even if they were, only the House of Representatives can decide who to seat for
7208	7208	the position.
7209	7209	2.
7210	7210	The public’s interest in the finality of elections and the preservation of judicial
7211	7211	economy weigh in favor of allowing the House of Representatives to exercise
7212	7212	its constitutional authority to determine who should be seated to serve. As
7213	7213	described in detail in the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Response to
7214	7214	Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion, with which the Municipal Defendants concur
7215	7215	and incorporate by reference, the House of Representatives has exclusive
7216	7216	authority to determine who should be seated to serve. Any order of this Court,
7217	7217	then, would constitute a mere advisory opinion. Given the significant resources
7218	7218	that have already been expended in conducting an election and then a District-
7219	7219	wide recount, the public interest will not be served if the result of the election
7220	7220	is held in limbo while three of the six communities in the District are forced to
7221	7221	expend considerably more resources in litigating issues to no binding effect.
7222	7222	Such an effort is futile and a waste of limited judicial and municipal resources,
7223	7223	with no corresponding benefit to the plaintiff.
7224	7224	3.
7225	7225	Even if the Court is inclined to consider the Plaintiff’s request for injunctive
7226	7226	relief despite the likelihood of a final resolution of the issue in the House, it
7227	7227	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7228	7228	Superior Court - Essex
7229	7229	Docket Number 2277CV012430082 3
7230	7230
7231	7231	should not
7232	7232	do so on the basis of reviewing only two ballots as requested by the
7233	7233	Plaintiff.
7234	7234	4. Finally, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits
7235	7235	a
7236	7236	s to any of the challenges raised in the Complaint. Rather, the Plaintiff has
7237	7237	misinterpreted the law as to the substantive issues raised in the Complaint, and
7238	7238	a hearing on the issues will plainly demonstrate that the decisions made as to
7239	7239	challenged ballots were made in accordance with state law and guidance from
7240	7240	the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Where those decisions were thoughtfully
7241	7241	made after argument from both candidates’ counsel at the recount, the decisions
7242	7242	should not be disturbed.
7243	7243	For these reasons, it is the position of the Municipal Defendants that the Plaintiff’s
7244	7244	Emergency Motion should be denied. In the alternative, if the Court is inclined to consider the
7245	7245	issuance of injunctive relief, the Municipal Defendants respectfully request an opportunity to
7246	7246	review the election materials and to present evidence and argument to further support their
7247	7247	position that the election laws of the Commonwealth were properly followed and that the results
7248	7248	of the election must stand.
7249	7249	II. ARGUMENT
7250	7250	A. The Relief Requested is Beyond the Authority of the Court to Order.
7251	7251	The Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction “enjoining the swearing-in of alleged
7252	7252	Election winner Ms. Kassner.” Emergency Motion, at 2. None of the defendants to this action, however, have the authority to swear-in Ms. Kassner or any other person to the position of State
7253	7253	Representative. Rather, the Constitution requires that State Representatives must be sworn in by
7254	7254	the Governor and the Governor’s Council in the presence of the two houses of assembly. MA
7255	7255	CONST. Pt. 2, c. 6, Art. 1. Neither the Governor nor the Governor’s Council is named as a party
7256	7256	to this action, and the Court does not have the authority to abrogate this Constitutional
7257	7257	requirement. See, e.g., Opinion of the Justices to the Senate, 375 Mass. 795, 815 (1978)
7258	7258	(proposed law to prohibit State senators and representatives from taking office unless they filed
7259	7259	financial disclosure statements would violate constitutional rights of Senate and House of
7260	7260	Representatives to be judges of elections, returns, and qualifications of their members).
7261	7261	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7262	7262	Superior Court - Essex
7263	7263	Docket Number 2277CV012430083 4
7264	7264
7265	7265	The Emergency Motion should be denied for the additional reason that only the House of
7266	7266	Representatives can decide who to seat for the position. See Wheatley v. Sec’y of Com., 439
7267	7267	Mass. 849, 851 (2003); G.L. c. 54, § 117; G.L. c. 3, § 1. In fact, not even the Legislature has the
7268	7268	authority to enact laws that would prohibit a public official from taking the oath of office or
7269	7269	entering on or continuing with their duties as a State senator or representative. See, e.g., Opinion
7270	7270	of the Justices to the Senate, supra at 810-811. Because an injunction prohibiting the swearing-
7271	7271	in of any individual to a seat in the House of Representatives is beyond the authority of the
7272	7272	Court, such an order would constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law. Accordingly, the
7273	7273	Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion should be denied.
7274	7274	B. The Relief Requested is Contrary to the Public Interest.
7275	7275	Where injunctive relief is requested against municipal entities and the Secretary of the
7276	7276	Commonwealth, the appropriate determination is whether: (1) the moving party has shown that
7277	7277	it has a likelihood of success on the merits; and, (2) the moving party’s requested relief
7278	7278	“promotes the public interest, or, alternatively, will not adversely affect the public.” LeClair, Jr.
7279	7279	v. Town of Norwell, 430 Mass. 328, 331-332 (1999), citing Commonwealth v. Mass. CRINC,
7280	7280	392 Mass. 79, 89 (1984). See also Town of Brookline v. Goldstein, 388 Mass. 443, 447 (1983)
7281	7281	(“In an appropriate case, the risk of harm to the public interest also may be considered”). In this
7282	7282	matter, the public’s interest in the finality of elections and the preservation of judicial economy
7283	7283	weigh in favor of this Court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief based on a wholly
7284	7284	incomplete record, and in allowing the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional
7285	7285	authority to determine who should be seated to serve.
7286	7286	As described in detail above and in the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Response to
7287	7287	Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion, with which the Municipal Defendants concur and incorporate by
7288	7288	reference, only the House of Representatives has the authority to determine who should be seated
7289	7289	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7290	7290	Superior Court - Essex
7291	7291	Docket Number 2277CV012430084 5
7292	7292
7293	7293	to ser
7294	7294	ve and any order of this Court would constitute merely an advisory opinion. Given the
7295	7295	significant resources that already have been expended in conducting an election and then a
7296	7296	District-wide recount, the public interest will not be served if the result of the election is held in
7297	7297	limbo while three of the six communities in the District are forced to expend considerably more
7298	7298	resources in litigating issues to no binding effect. Such an effort is futile and a waste of limited
7299	7299	judicial and municipal resources, with no corresponding benefit to the Plaintiff.
7300	7300	Rather, the public interest favors the exercise of judicial restraint “that includes
7301	7301	recognition of the undesirability of the judiciary substituting its notions of correct policy for that
7302	7302	of a popularly elected Legislature.” See Zayre Corp. v. Attorney General, 372 Mass. 423, 433
7303	7303	(1977). Additionally, “the duty of this court, as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide
7304	7304	actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give [advisory]
7305	7305	opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law
7306	7306	which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Caputo v. Board of Appeals of
7307	7307	Somerville, 330 Mass. 107, 111 (1953) (internal quotations omitted). The issuance of a
7308	7308	preliminary injunction in this matter, based on a partial record of the recount conducted in only three of the seven towns in the District, would not be entitled to any deference by the House, and
7309	7309	the Court should refrain from making any determinations on that basis.
7310	7310	In this regard, there is a well-established procedure for the House of Representatives to
7311	7311	decide this dispute and it has invoked that procedure on numerous occasions. See Wheatley, 439
7312	7312	Mass. at 854. The House has the resources and the expertise to decide this matter, and is in the
7313	7313	best position to determine the best interests of its membership. While the Court presently
7314	7314	possesses jurisdiction over this matter, that jurisdiction may be removed at any time after
7315	7315	January 4, 2023, even after a decision is rendered, leaving the Court in the position of issuing a
7316	7316	ruling that is merely advisory. Cf. Greenwood v. Registrars of Voters of City of Fitchburg, 282
7317	7317	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7318	7318	Superior Court - Essex
7319	7319	Docket Number 2277CV012430085 6
7320	7320
7321	7321	Mass. 74 (1933) (dismissing appeal after trial and finding showing that election should be
7322	7322	reversed, where House had assumed jurisdiction over matter and it became moot, such that “any
7323	7323	decision [by court] would be nugatory or unavailing”); Wheatley, supra (change in
7324	7324	circumstances regarding House representative rendered judge’s order for new election moot).
7325	7325	Such an undesirable result easily can be avoided if the Court exercises its discretion in favor of
7326	7326	restraint. This will allow the House to assume its Constitutional responsibility for determining
7327	7327	its own membership, which only serves the public interest.
7328	7328	C. The Court Should Not Decide the Matter in Piecemeal Fashion.
7329	7329	Even if the Court is inclined to issue injunctive relief, as the Court appears to have
7330	7330	recognized at the scheduling hearing on December 27, 2022 and its December 28, 2022 order
7331	7331	requiring all protested ballots to be delivered to the Court for review, it cannot do so on the basis
7332	7332	of reviewing only two ballots as requested by the Plaintiff. Massachusetts courts have long
7333	7333	adhered to a strict policy of avoiding piecemeal litigation, which tends to waste the limited
7334	7334	resources of the Court and the parties, and inevitably leads to unjustified delay. See generally
7335	7335	Long v. Wickett, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 380, 387-388 (2000) (collecting cases). Such piecemeal
7336	7336	review cannot occur here, where the Plaintiff seeks an initial determination on only two of several contested ballots. While this process may benefit the Plaintiff if he prevails on those two
7337	7337	ballots, it does not take into account what processes will follow if he does not prevail on those
7338	7338	two ballots; nor does it account for the ability of the Defendant-Intervenor to raise questions as to
7339	7339	any other ballots that she has protested. If each of the contested issues in this case are to be
7340	7340	separately litigated, the proceeding will be a long and drawn-out affair that will unnecessarily
7341	7341	delay the seating of a State representative. Additionally, where the Municipal Defendants will be
7342	7342	severely prejudiced by having to respond to such a scattershot approach, the Court should reject
7343	7343	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7344	7344	Superior Court - Essex
7345	7345	Docket Number 2277CV012430086 7
7346	7346
7347	7347	the
7348	7348	Plaintiff’s request for limited review of just two ballots and should set the matter down for a
7349	7349	hearing on all contested matters.
7350	7350	D. The Challenged Ballots Properly Were Counted at the Recounts.
7351	7351	Finally, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits of any
7352	7352	challenges raised in the Complaint. Rather, the Plaintiff has misinterpreted the law, and as a
7353	7353	hearing on the issues plainly will demonstrate that the decisions made as to challenged ballots
7354	7354	were made in accordance with state law and guidance from the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
7355	7355	Where those decisions were thoughtfully made by a Board of Registrars after argument from
7356	7356	both candidates’ counsel at each recount, the decisions should not be disturbed.
7357	7357	“The object of election laws is to secure the rights of duly qualified electors and not
7358	7358	to defeat them.” McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters of Brockton, 385 Mass. 833, 837 (1982)
7359	7359	(internal quotation and citation omitted). See also Fyntrilakis v. City of Springfield, 47 Mass.
7360	7360	App. Ct. 464, 469 (1999), quoting Swift v. Registrars of Voters of Quincy, 281 Mass. 271,
7361	7361	276 (1932) (“The object of elections is to ascertain the popular will and not to thwart it”).
7362	7362	“This must be borne in mind in the construction of such statutes, and the presumption is that
7363	7363	they are enacted to prevent fraud and to secure freedom of choice, and not by technical
7364	7364	obstructions to make the right of voting insecure.” McCavitt, supra at 837 (internal
7365	7365	quotation and citation omitted). The court should “resolv[e] voting disputes, where at all possible, in favor of the voter.” Id.
7366	7366	To determine whether the Plaintiff may prevail on the merits of his claims, applicable
7367	7367	law provides that the Court should conduct a de novo review of all protested ballots to
7368	7368	ascertain the precise margin of victory for the candidate declared the winner. See Colten v.
7369	7369	City of Haverhill, 409 Mass. 55, 57 (1991). In so doing, the “cardinal rule … is that if the
7370	7370	intent of the voter can be determined with reasonable certainty from an inspection of the
7371	7371	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7372	7372	Superior Court - Essex
7373	7373	Docket Number 2277CV012430087 8
7374	7374
7375	7375	ballot, in light of the generally known conditions attendant upon the election, effect must be
7376	7376	given to that intent and the vote counted in accordance therewith.” McCavitt, supra at 838,
7377	7377	quoting O’Brien v. Bd. of Elections of Boston, 257 Mass. 332, 338 (1926).
7378	7378	1
7379	7379	Only serious
7380	7380	irregularities that place the results of the election in doubt and violate the substantive end for
7381	7381	which the election was held can invalidate the result. See Fyntrilakis, 47 Mass. App. Ct. at
7382	7382	469; Swift, 281 Mass. 278. Indeed, absent direct evidence of fraud or misconduct, alleged
7383	7383	irregularities in the processing of election materials, including comparisons of signatures and
7384	7384	other such absentee ballot matters, are typically insufficient to cast doubt on the results of an
7385	7385	election. See Swift, 281 Mass. at 283 (collecting cases for proposition that, absent evidence of
7386	7386	“fraud or tampering …, [the] failure on the part of election officers to perform the precise duty
7387	7387	imposed on them with respect to the [absentee ballot] envelopes does not invalidate the votes or
7388	7388	afford any ground for nullifying the count”). Absent any such serious irregularities, fraud, or
7389	7389	misconduct, the Emergency Motion must be denied.
7390	7390	In this matter, as described in detail below, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated a
7391	7391	likelihood of success on the merits of its claims because the protested ballots properly were counted by the Registrars during the recount and there is no evidence of serious irregularities
7392	7392	or fraud that cast doubt on the outcome of the election. As such, the Emergency Motion
7393	7393	should be denied.
7394	7394	2
7395	7395
7396	7396
7397	7397
7398	7398	1
7399	7399	On the back of each sealed ballot, the registrars have made and signed a statement of their determination of the
7400	7400	questions raised, which includes – in red pen or pencil – a statement regarding the candidate for whom they declare
7401	7401	the voter to have voted in this race. See G.L. c. 54, § 135 (“The registrars shall, when the recount is complete, enclose
7402	7402	all the ballots in their proper envelopes or containers, seal each envelope or container with a seal provided therefor,
7403	7403	and certify upon each envelope or container that it has been opened and again sealed in conformity to law; and shall
7404	7404	likewise make and sign a statement of their determination of the questions raised”).
7405	7405
7406	7406	2
7407	7407	The Municipal Defendants’ Opposition addresses only those challenges that are currently raised in the Complaint or
7408	7408	that may be before the Court on the Emergency Motion, and the allegations in the Complaint as accepted as true for
7409	7409	purposes of this Opposition only. The Municipal Defendants reserve their right to address any additional challenges
7410	7410	that may be raised by any party in this action and do not hereby waive any applicable defenses that they may have.
7411	7411	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7412	7412	Superior Court - Essex
7413	7413	Docket Number 2277CV012430088 9
7414	7414
7415	7415	i. G
7416	7416	eorgetown – Protested Ballots.
7417	7417	As set forth in his Complaint, the Plaintiff challenges one ballot recorded as a
7418	7418	“blank” from Precinct 1, Block 28; he avers that it should be counted as a vote for the
7419	7419	Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Complaint, at ¶ 43. The Plaintiff contends that there was a small dot in
7420	7420	the center of the oval next to his name which shows that the intent of the voter was to cast a
7421	7421	vote for Plaintiff. Id.
7422	7422	In reviewing all ballots, this Court should consider the “character and location of the
7423	7423	mark [on each ballot] and the conditions attendant upon the election,” as well as any other
7424	7424	“patterns that reveal the voters’ intent.” McCavitt, supra at 838 (citations omitted). See
7425	7425	also Colten, 409 Mass. at 58 (accepting marks that extend inside and outside the contested
7426	7426	race, and examining ballot as whole, if voter’s intent can be determined with reasonable certainty). See also Gilligan v. Registrars of Voters, 323 Mass. 346, 348 (1948) (diagonal
7427	7427	marks on ballot in boxes next to candidates’ name, if used “consistently throughout the ballot [to] indicate clearly the intent of the voter,” may be counted). By contrast, if the marking made
7428	7428	is inconsistent with other markings on the ballot, “it reasonably may be inferred that the [mark]
7429	7429	… is due to error or accident.” Gilligan, supra at 348.
7430	7430	In this regard, the Georgetown Board of Registrars reviewed the entire ballot and
7431	7431	considered arguments from attorneys for both candidates during the recount. Based on this
7432	7432	review, the Registrars determined the small mark in question was inconsistent with any other
7433	7433	markings on the ballot, in which the voter filled out the full oval for other races, evidencing
7434	7434	that the voter put their pen down briefly and removed it without filling out a vote for the
7435	7435	Plaintiff, and therefore, did not intend to cast a vote for the Plaintiff. Georgetown submits
7436	7436	that the “intent of the voter can be determined with reasonable certainty from an inspection
7437	7437	of the ballot,” and that the voter intended to cast its vote as a “blank” because the voter did
7438	7438	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7439	7439	Superior Court - Essex
7440	7440	Docket Number 2277CV012430089 10
7441	7441
7442	7442	not fill out the full oval next to Plaintiff’s name, as it had for all other races. McCavitt,
7443	7443	supra at 838, quoting O’Brien, 257 Mass. at 338. As such, “effect must be given to that
7444	7444	intent and the vote counted in accordance therewith,” id., and the Plaintiff’s challenge to this
7445	7445	ballot should be denied.
7446	7446	ii. Georgetown – Reported Votes Between Election and Recount.
7447	7447	The Plaintiff also appears to allege that a difference by one (1) vote in the reported
7448	7448	vote total in Precinct 2 for Georgetown from the election to the recount may affect the
7449	7449	outcome of the election. Plaintiff’s Complaint, at ¶¶ 39-40. Notably, however, the total
7450	7450	votes cast for Plaintiff did not change between the election and the recount; though Kristin
7451	7451	Kassner gained one vote in Precinct 1, any discrepancy in the reported vote total was in the
7452	7452	number of blank ballots counted in Precinct 2. See Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Complaint
7453	7453	(Plaintiff received same number of votes at election and at recount). Therefore, such vote
7454	7454	cannot reasonably be said to have affected the outcome of the election or be called for the
7455	7455	Plaintiff. In any event, absent any evidence of actual fraud or misconduct, or specific
7456	7456	evidence of how these discrepancies might have materially affected the election, such
7457	7457	discrepancies do not cast doubt on the substantive outcome of the election. See, e.g., Pena
7458	7458	v. City of Revere, 1997 WL 799478, at 7-8 (Mass. Super. Dec. 23, 1997) (declining to
7459	7459	order new election based on discrepancies in total number of votes reported between
7460	7460	election day and recount); Swift, supra.
7461	7461	iii. Ipswich – Protested Ballots.
7462	7462	The Plaintiff seeks to challenge two protested ballots in the Town of Ipswich. With
7463	7463	respect to one ballot from Precinct 4, Block 37, the Plaintiff alleges that the voter filled in
7464	7464	the oval for the Plaintiff but also wrote-in the name “Donald Trump” as a write-in
7465	7465	candidate for that same office. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶ 55; Plaintiff’s Memorandum of
7466	7466	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7467	7467	Superior Court - Essex
7468	7468	Docket Number 2277CV012430090 11
7469	7469
7470	7470	Law in Support of Emergency Motion, at 3. With respect to a second ballot from Precinct
7471	7471	1, Block 19, the voter appeared to fill in marks in the ovals next to the Plaintiff’s and
7472	7472	Kristin Kassner’s names. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶ 57. Both ballots were declared by the
7473	7473	Board of Registrars to be “overvotes” and therefore were counted as blanks. Notably, the
7474	7474	case law is clear that an “overvote” – meaning a vote for more candidates than are to be
7475	7475	elected for a particular office – “does not vitiate a proper expression of preference for the
7476	7476	office” to be elected; rather, “[i]f a voter marks more names than there are persons to be
7477	7477	elected to an office his [or her] ballot shall not be counted for such office.” Kane v.
7478	7478	Registrars of Fall River, 328 Mass. 511, 520 (1952) (emphasis in original), quoting G.L. c.
7479	7479	54, § 106. Therefore, overvotes are appropriately to be called as a blank.
7480	7480	Here, to the extent that any of the protested ballots evidenced an intent to vote for
7481	7481	more than one person for the office of Second Essex District State Representative – whether the ballot was filled out for both Donald Trump and Leonard Mirra, or both Leonard Mirra
7482	7482	and Kristin Kassner – such votes are typically declared overvotes and counted as blanks for
7483	7483	that particular office because the will of the voter cannot reasonably be ascertained. See,
7484	7484	e.g., Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Election
7485	7485	Recounts, at p. 8 (“Votes written in for candidates who are already printed on the ballot for the
7486	7486	same office are considered over-votes and must be tallied as blanks”); Morris v. Bd. of
7487	7487	Registrars of Voters of E. Bridgewater, 362 Mass. 48, 53 (1972) (where protested ballot
7488	7488	contained marks in the boxes opposite the names of two candidates, will of voter cannot be ascertained such that it “should be counted as a blank”).
7489	7489	iv. Ipswich – Reported Votes Between Election and Recount.
7490	7490	The Plaintiff also appears to challenge the reported vote total of 14 votes between
7491	7491	the election and recount in Ipswich, or the comparison of signatures on absentee or mail-in
7492	7492	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7493	7493	Superior Court - Essex
7494	7494	Docket Number 2277CV012430091 12
7495	7495
7496	7496	voting envelopes. Plaintiff’s Complaint, at ¶¶ 51-52, 60-61. For the reasons stated above
7497	7497	for Georgetown, absent evidence of fraud or a lack of security with respect to the ballots,
7498	7498	discrepancies in the number of ballots counted at the election and at the recount do not cast
7499	7499	doubt on the substantive outcome of the election. See, e.g., Pena, 1997 WL 799478, at *7-
7500	7500	*8 (declining to order new election based on discrepancies in total number of votes
7501	7501	reported between election day and recount). Additionally, where there is no allegation of
7502	7502	fraud or tampering with the processing or comparison of signatures on absentee ballot
7503	7503	envelopes by election officials who are presumed to comply with the law and exercise
7504	7504	their duties honestly and in good faith, the Plaintiff cannot prevail on the merits of any
7505	7505	such signature-comparison allegations. See, e.g., Swift, 281 Mass. at 283 (collecting cases
7506	7506	for proposition that, absent evidence of “fraud or tampering …, [the] failure on the part of
7507	7507	election officers to perform the precise duty imposed on them with respect to the [absentee
7508	7508	ballot] envelopes does not invalidate the votes or afford any ground for nullifying the count”).
7509	7509	v. Rowley – Protested Ballots.
7510	7510	The Plaintiff alleges that several ballots cast in Rowley during the election that
7511	7511	were rejected by voting machines were marked “spoiled” and were not counted, but that
7512	7512	these ballots were subsequently “unspoil[ed]” and counted as part of the recount.
7513	7513	Plaintiff’s Complaint, at ¶¶ 68-69. With regard to any “spoiled” ballots that were
7514	7514	protested by the Plaintiff on the ground that they should not be counted, the election laws
7515	7515	provide that a ballot cannot be considered “spoiled” merely because an optical scanner or
7516	7516	voting machine rejects the ballot as unreadable. See, e.g., Swift, 281 Mass. at 280-281
7517	7517	(ordering that ballots left “uncanceled” due “solely to the failure of the mechanisms within the ballot box” be counted). Rather, if such ballots cannot be read by the machine and the
7518	7518	voter has not opted to spoil the ballot and cast a new one, such ballots are deposited into
7519	7519	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7520	7520	Superior Court - Essex
7521	7521	Docket Number 2277CV012430092 13
7522	7522
7523	7523	the voting machine’s auxillary bin and are hand-counted by the election workers at the
7524	7524	close of the election. Indeed, under G.L. c. 54, § 81, only a “voter” may spoil a ballot – up
7525	7525	to three ballots total – and, in such instances, the ballot inspector segregates the ballot in a
7526	7526	separate envelope without placing it into the voting machine and marks the ballot as
7527	7527	“spoiled.” See 950 CMR 54.04(11-12).
7528	7528	Here, the evidence will not show that the voters intentionally spoiled such ballots
7529	7529	pursuant to G.L. c. 54, § 81. In marked contrast, it will show that the very person that
7530	7530	marked the ballots as “spoiled” at the election was the Election Warden, who did so because
7531	7531	they could not be read by the voting machine. The Rowley Board of Registrars
7532	7532	appropriately determined that such ballots properly were required to be counted at the
7533	7533	recount, and that the votes from such ballots appropriately were recorded. Accordingly,
7534	7534	such voters’ ballots appropriately would be counted. See Fyntrilakis, 47 Mass. App. Ct. at
7535	7535	469, quoting McCavitt, 385 Mass. at 841-842 (“It is a fundamental principle that a voter who has
7536	7536	cast his ballot in good faith should not be disenfranchised ‘because of the failure of a ministerial
7537	7537	officer to perform some duty imposed upon him by law’”).
7538	7538	vi. Rowley – Absentee Ballots.
7539	7539	The Plaintiff also appears to challenge an overseas absentee ballot cast in Rowley
7540	7540	pursuant to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (“UOCAVA”)
7541	7541	because it was not stapled to an affidavit at the recount. Plaintiff’s Complaint, at ¶ 70.
7542	7542	There is no UOCAVA requirement that an affidavit be stapled to the corresponding ballot.
7543	7543	Here, the evidence will show that the affidavit was paper-clipped to the ballot, and any
7544	7544	claims that such a ballot should not be counted are contrary to the election laws. To the
7545	7545	contrary, a “voter should not be disenfranchised if he substantially complies with the election
7546	7546	law.” Colten, 409 Mass. at 60 (1991). There is no evidence that the UOCAVA voter did not
7547	7547	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7548	7548	Superior Court - Essex
7549	7549	Docket Number 2277CV012430093 14
7550	7550
7551	7551	comply with the election law in this case. Further, the evidence will demonstrate that the
7552	7552	objection by the Plaintiff to this ballot was made in an untimely matter. As such, the Plaintiff is
7553	7553	unlikely to prevail on the merits of any attempt to disenfranchise this absentee voter.
7554	7554	Additionally, to the extent the Plaintiff takes issue with materials that he allegedly
7555	7555	was not permitted to inspect at the Rowley Recount, it is expected that the evidence will
7556	7556	show that counsel for the Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to review any available
7557	7557	materials. In any event, however, alleged irregularities at a recount procedure are not
7558	7558	grounds to set aside an election. See, e.g., Crosby, 350 Mass. at 548 (declining to set aside
7559	7559	recount results that reversed initial outcome of election based on alleged irregularities in
7560	7560	recount procedures); Swift, 281 Mass. at 267-268 (upholding recount results even where
7561	7561	1,506 ballots were destroyed after election due to good faith mistake).
7562	7562	vii. Rowley – Reported Votes Between Election and Recount.
7563	7563	Finally, to the extent the Plaintiff also takes issue with the reported vote totals
7564	7564	between the election and recount in Rowley, Plaintiff’s Complaint, at ¶¶ 64-65, as discussed in detail above for Georgetown and Ipswich, such discrepancies do not require
7565	7565	the relief requested. Pena, supra.
7566	7566	III. CONCLUSION
7567	7567	Based on the foregoing, the Municipal Defendants respectfully submit that they
7568	7568	have employed appropriate procedures and complied with all relevant election laws in the
7569	7569	above-captioned matter. As such, the Plaintiff is unlikely to prevail on the merits of its
7570	7570	case at trial, and the public interest in preserving the integrity of the election requires the
7571	7571	maintenance of the status quo here. See Mass. CRINC, 392 Mass. at 87. Therefore, the
7572	7572	Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion should be denied.
7573	7573
7574	7574	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7575	7575	Superior Court - Essex
7576	7576	Docket Number 2277CV012430094 15
7577	7577
7578	7578	R
7579	7579	espectfully Submitted,
7580	7580	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS
7581	7581	OF VOTERS
7582	7582
7583	7583	By its attorneys,
7584	7584
7585	7585	/s/ Lauren F. Goldberg
7586	7586	_____________________________________
7587	7587	Lauren F. Goldberg (BBO# 631013)
7588	7588	Gregg J. Corbo (BBO# 641459)
7589	7589	Devan C. Braun (BBO# 703243)
7590	7590	KP Law, P.C.
7591	7591	101 Arch Street, 12th Floor
7592	7592	Boston, MA 02110-1109
7593	7593	(617) 556-0007
7594	7594	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
7595	7595	gcorbo@k-plaw.com
7596	7596	dbraun@k-plaw.com
7597	7597
7598	7598	TOWN OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS OF
7599	7599	VOTERS and IPSWICH TOWN CLERK OF
7600	7600
7601	7601	By their attorneys,
7602	7602
7603	7603	/s/ George A. Hall, Jr.
7604	7604	______________________________________
7605	7605	George A. Hall, Jr. (BBO #544493) ghall@andersonkreiger.com
7606	7606	Christina Marshall (BBO #688348)
7607	7607	cmarshall@andersonkreiger.com
7608	7608	ANDERSON & KREIGER LLP
7609	7609	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
7610	7610	Boston, MA 02109
7611	7611	(617) 621-6500
7612	7612	TOWN OF ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF
7613	7613	VOTERS and TOWN CLERK OF THE
7614	7614	TOWN OF ROWLEY,
7615	7615
7616	7616	By their attorney,
7617	7617
7618	7618	/s/ Yael Magen
7619	7619	____________________________________
7620	7620	Yael Magen (BBO# 687179)
7621	7621	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
7622	7622	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
7623	7623	40 Salem Street
7624	7624	Building 2, Suite 12
7625	7625	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
7626	7626	781-245-2284
7627	7627
7628	7628
7629	7629
7630	7630	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7631	7631	Superior Court - Essex
7632	7632	Docket Number 2277CV012430095 16
7633	7633
7634	7634	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
7635	7635
7636	7636	I, Devan C. Braun, hereby certify that on the below date, I served a copy of the foregoing
7637	7637	Municipal Defendants’ Opposition by electronic mail only to the following counsel of record:
7638	7638
7639	7639	Michael J. Sullivan
7640	7640	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
7641	7641	Ashcroft Law Firm
7642	7642	200 State Street, 7
7643	7643	th
7644	7644	Floor
7645	7645	Boston, MA 02109
7646	7646	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
7647	7647
7648	7648	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
7649	7649	Gerald A. McDonough
7650	7650	13 Hollis Street
7651	7651	Cambridge, MA 02140
7652	7652	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
7653	7653
7654	7654
7655	7655	Anne Sterman
7656	7656	Adam Hornstine
7657	7657	Office of the Attorney General
7658	7658	One Ashburton Place
7659	7659	Boston, MA 02108
7660	7660	617-963-2524
7661	7661	anne.sterman@state.ma.us
7662	7662
7663	7663	adam.hornstine@state.ma.us
7664	7664
7665	7665
7666	7666
7667	7667	Dated: December 29, 2022 _________________________________
7668	7668	Devan C. Braun
7669	7669
7670	7670	Date Filed 12/29/2022 9:50 AM
7671	7671	Superior Court - Essex
7672	7672	Docket Number 2277CV012430096
7673	7673
7674	7674	1
7675	7675
7676	7676	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
7677	7677
7678	7678	ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF
7679	7679	THE TRIAL COURT
7680	7680	CIVIL ACTION NO 2277-CV-01243
7681	7681	___________________________________
7682	7682	)
7683	7683	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA , )
7684	7684	)
7685	7685	Plaintiff, )
7686	7686	)
7687	7687	v. )
7688	7688	)
7689	7689	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF )
7690	7690	VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH RE GISTRARS )
7691	7691	OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN )
7692	7692	OF IPSWICH, TOWN OF ROWLEY )
7693	7693	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS , TOWN CLERK )
7694	7694	FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY, WILLIAM )
7695	7695	F. GALVIN, in his official )
7696	7696	capacity as Secretary of the )
7697	7697	Commonwealth of Massachusetts, )
7698	7698	And KRISTIN KASSNER, )
7699	7699	)
7700	7700	Defendants. )
7701	7701	__________________________________ _)
7702	7702
7703	7703	DEFENDANT KRISTIN KASSNER’S OPPOSITION TO
7704	7704	PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
7705	7705
7706	7706	With respect to the above-captioned matter, and pursuant to
7707	7707	this Court’s directive, Defendant Kristin Kassner ( “Ms.
7708	7708	Kassner”), the certified State Representative -Elect for the
7709	7709	Second Essex District , objects as follows to the motion for a
7710	7710	preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff Leonard Mirra (“Mr.
7711	7711	Mirra”).
7712	7712	The central point of Ms. Kassner’s opposition is that the
7713	7713	remedy that Mr. Mirra seeks – barring the House of
7714	7714	Representatives from swearing in Ms. Kassner next Wednesday and
7715	7715	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
7716	7716	Superior Court - Essex
7717	7717	Docket Number 2277CV01243
7718	7718	180097
7719	7719
7720	7720	2
7721	7721
7722	7722	requiring the House to continue to seat Mr. Mirra – is, as set
7723	7723	forth below and in her Motion to Dismiss , beyond the
7724	7724	jurisdiction of this Court. If the remedy that Mr. Mirra seeks
7725	7725	is beyond the authority of this Court to grant, then the means
7726	7726	to that end – the piecemeal review of just two ballots – is not
7727	7727	a means to an end but a means without an end.
7728	7728	1
7729	7729
7730	7730	It is important to note , as set forth in Ms. Kassner’s
7731	7731	Motion to Dismiss, that Ms. Kassner is not attempting to debate
7732	7732	the outcome of this dispute. There is no question but that some
7733	7733	entity will have to address this matter. The challenge to this
7734	7734	Court is whether the Court will decide this matter on its own,
7735	7735	in the limited time that is available for review of these
7736	7736	issues, or whether the Court will allow the House of
7737	7737	Representatives, to whom the framers of the Massachusetts
7738	7738	Constitution delegated these issues, to be the ultimate
7739	7739	decision-maker. This may well be a case where ju stice is best
7740	7740	served by judicial restraint. See Zayre Corporation v. Attorney
7741	7741
7742	7742	1
7743	7743	Mr. Mirra, who has served as a State Representative for five terms,
7744	7744	since 2013, presumably is aware of the Massachusetts Constitution and the
7745	7745	hopelessness of his Motion. If that is true, what would explain the rationale
7746	7746	for pursuing this course of action? Since the onset of this litigation, Mr.
7747	7747	Mirra has carefully cultivated his position in the media in an effort to sway
7748	7748	public opinion. See, e.g., John P. Muldoon, “Selecting Two Votes from
7749	7749	Ipswich, Mirra Files for Victory or Tie,” Ipswich Local News (Dec. 28, 2022)
7750	7750	(describing all of Mr. Mirra’s contentions). Moreover, on Wednesday, December
7751	7751	21, 2022, after filing the complaint but before serving it on any of the
7752	7752	Defendants, Mr. Mirra reached out to the press with a statement that he
7753	7753	insisted be embargoed until 10:00 a.m. on the following day. And Mr. Mirra’s
7754	7754	allegations have been published widely throughout newspapers in the Second
7755	7755	Essex District. Mr. Mirra may well believe that he will fare better in the
7756	7756	court of public opinion than in this Court.
7757	7757
7758	7758	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
7759	7759	Superior Court - Essex
7760	7760	Docket Number 2277CV012430098
7761	7761
7762	7762	3
7763	7763
7764	7764	General, 372 Mass. 423, 433 (1977) (“principle of judicial
7765	7765	restraint includes recognition of the inability and
7766	7766	undesirability of the judiciary substituting its notions of
7767	7767	correct policy for that of a popularly elected Legislatur e”).
7768	7768	Argument
7769	7769	Mr. Mirra’s Claims Are Barred by Laches.
7770	7770	Mr. Mirra’s claims are not just jurisdictionally deficient,
7771	7771	but also barred by the doctrine of laches. Laches on the part of
7772	7772	the plaintiff is an unreasonable delay in instituting the
7773	7773	action, which results in some injury or prejudice to the
7774	7774	defendant. See, e.g., Calkins v. Wire Hardware Company , 267
7775	7775	Mass. 52, 69 (1929).
7776	7776	Since the end of the recount, on December 8th, Mr. Mirra
7777	7777	consistently claimed that he was preparing a lawsuit. Yet Mr.
7778	7778	Mirra took no action when the Executive Council and the Governor
7779	7779	certified the election results on December 1 4th. Instead, Mr.
7780	7780	Mirra waited until after the close of business on Wednesday,
7781	7781	December 21st, to file his complaint, which he tried to conceal
7782	7782	from public disclosure until the following day , right before the
7783	7783	Christmas holiday weekend. And Mr. Mirra filed the motion for a
7784	7784	preliminary injunction after the close of business on Friday,
7785	7785	December 23rd, at the beginning of the three -day holiday
7786	7786	weekend.
7787	7787	Ms. Kassner was only permitted to intervene as a party on
7788	7788	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
7789	7789	Superior Court - Essex
7790	7790	Docket Number 2277CV012430099
7791	7791
7792	7792	4
7793	7793
7794	7794	Tuesday, December 27th. She has not been allowed an opportunity
7795	7795	to answer Mr. Mirra’s complaint, no r has she had any time to
7796	7796	prepare a defense and raise her own issues. For example, there
7797	7797	were three missing ballots in Precinct 2 in Newbury, the only
7798	7798	precinct in the district where there were less votes than the
7799	7799	originally certified number of ballots that affected either
7800	7800	candidate – i.e., Ms. Kassner who lost two votes as a result,
7801	7801	which is enough to moot Mr. Mirra’s motion.
7802	7802	2
7803	7803
7804	7804	Mr. Mirra’s rush to judgment to get a decision from this
7805	7805	Court prior to January 4 th stands in stark contrast to hi s
7806	7806	inexplicable delays in initiating this litigation . To this
7807	7807	point, Mr. Mirra’s delays have only affected Ms. Kassner and the
7808	7808	other Defendants, while it is Mr. Mirra who , pursuant to laches,
7809	7809	should face the consequences.
7810	7810	The Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Provide the Remedy Sought.
7811	7811	Ms. Kassner has set forth her jurisdictional objections in
7812	7812	her Memorandum in support of her Motion to Dismiss, so there is
7813	7813	no need to rehash those arguments here. But Mr. Mirra’s motion
7814	7814	for a preliminary injunction goes far beyond his Complaint ,
7815	7815	which merely asks the Court to review the election. Mr. Mirra’s
7816	7816	motion asks this Court to tie the hands of the House of
7817	7817
7818	7818	2
7819	7819	After the recount in Georgetown, there wa s one less ballot in Precinct
7820	7820	2 than were initially certified, but this did not change the vote count for
7821	7821	either candidate. In contrast, in Precinct 2 in Newbury, there were three
7822	7822	less ballots after the recount than were initially certified, reducing Ms.
7823	7823	Kassner’s total by two votes and blank votes by one.
7824	7824	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
7825	7825	Superior Court - Essex
7826	7826	Docket Number 2277CV0124300100
7827	7827
7828	7828	5
7829	7829
7830	7830	Representatives and even go further and tell the House of
7831	7831	Representatives which of the two candidates should be seated
7832	7832	pending the outcome of a trial. Mr. Mirra’s scheme, by cherry
7833	7833	picking two ballots out of all those he objected to in his
7834	7834	Complaint, is more of an attempt to sway public opinion in a
7835	7835	rush to judgment than a good faith attempt to resolve this
7836	7836	dispute in the one forum that actually ha s unquestioned
7837	7837	jurisdiction.
7838	7838	The Court May Not Stay Ms. Kassner’s Swearing -In.
7839	7839	Mr. Mirra contends that this Court can stay the swearing in
7840	7840	of Ms. Kassner next Wednesday, should the House of
7841	7841	Representatives choose to swear her in at that time. Ms.
7842	7842	Kassner, taking no position in this forum as to whether or not
7843	7843	she should be sworn in at that time, opposes the authority of
7844	7844	this Court to make that determination, as that is a
7845	7845	determination that should be left to the House itself.
7846	7846	Since its inception, the Massachusetts Constitution has
7847	7847	expressly provided that “[t]he house of representatives shall be
7848	7848	the judge of the returns, elections, and qualifications of its
7849	7849	own members.” G.L. Const. Pt. 2, C. 1, § 3, Art. 10 . The Supreme
7850	7850	Judicial Court has address this question on a number of
7851	7851	occasions, but the Court’s statement in Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass.
7852	7852	516 (1916), is particularly compelling :
7853	7853	The power to pass upon the election and qualification of
7854	7854	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
7855	7855	Superior Court - Essex
7856	7856	Docket Number 2277CV0124300101
7857	7857	6
7858	7858	its own members thus is vested exclusively in each branch
7859	7859	of the General Court. No other department of the
7860	7860	government has any authority under the Constitution to
7861	7861	adjudicate upon that subject. The grant of power is
7862	7862	comprehensive, full and complete. It is necessarily
7863	7863	exclusive, for the Constitution contains no words
7864	7864	permitting either branch of the Legislature to delegate
7865	7865	or share that power. It must remain where the sovereign
7866	7866	authority of the state has placed it. General phrases
7867	7867	elsewhere in the Constitution, which in the absence of
7868	7868	an explicit imposition of power and duty would permit
7869	7869	the enactment of laws to govern the subject, cannot
7870	7870	narrow or impair the positive declaration of the
7871	7871	people's will that this power is vested solely in the
7872	7872	Senate and House respectively. I t is a prerogative
7873	7873	belonging to each House, which each alone can exercise.
7874	7874	It is not susceptible of being deputed.
7875	7875	Id. at 517 (emphasis added).
7876	7876	This Court, therefore, has no authority to tell the House
7877	7877	of Representatives how to conduct its business, and whom to
7878	7878	swear in or not to swear in on January 4th.
7879	7879	The Court May Not Require the House to Seat Mr. Mirra.
7880	7880	For the same reasons, this Court may not direct the House
7881	7881	of Representatives to seat Mr. Mirra pending the outcome of a
7882	7882	trial. It is up to the House itself to determine its membership
7883	7883	and who may be seated.
7884	7884	At the same time, there are special circumstances here that
7885	7885	the House will likely consider when making such a determination.
7886	7886	It is true that the Constitution provide s that members of the
7887	7887	House of Representatives serve until their successors are chosen
7888	7888	and qualified. See G.L. Const. Amend. Art. 64, § 1 . But, at this
7889	7889	point in time, it appears that, as a result of the Certification
7890	7890	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
7891	7891	Superior Court - Essex
7892	7892	Docket Number 2277CV0124300102
7893	7893	7
7894	7894	issued by the Executive Council and signed by the Governor, Ms.
7895	7895	Kassner has been chosen and qualified for the position of State
7896	7896	Representative in the Second Essex District.
7897	7897	Moreover, it is difficult to consider either Mr. Mirra or
7898	7898	Ms. Kassner as a successor State Representative. The Second
7899	7899	Essex District was dramatically altered by the legislative
7900	7900	redistricting that took effect for this election. Only the towns
7901	7901	of Georgetown and Newbury for the prior Second Essex District
7902	7902	were retained in the new District. Mr. Mirra never represented
7903	7903	the other four towns in the District – Ipswich, Rowley,
7904	7904	Hamilton, and Topsfield. The voters in Georgetown and Newbury
7905	7905	constitute less than one -third of the voters in the n ew Second
7906	7906	Essex District. In light of that redistricting, it is
7907	7907	disingenuous to call Mr. Mirra the succ essor.
7908	7908	The Two Disputed Ballots
7909	7909	Although Mr. Mirra’s complaint is replete with examples of
7910	7910	what he contends are issues that should overturn the election,
7911	7911	in his motion for a preliminary election, he focuses on just two
7912	7912	of the protested ballots from Ipswich. As set forth below, Ms.
7913	7913	Kassner continues to assert that the Ipswich Board of Registrars
7914	7914	accurately counted those two ballots as blanks.
7915	7915	3
7916	7916
7917	7917	3
7918	7918	At the Court hearing on December 27, 2022, Ms. Kassner had understood
7919	7919	that she would be able to view the two disputed ballots at the Essex Superior
7920	7920	Court Clerk’s office after 3:00 p.m. on December 28, 2022. Because the Clerk
7921	7921	changed the time for the Defendants to provide the protested ballots to
7922	7922	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
7923	7923	Superior Court - Essex
7924	7924	Docket Number 2277CV0124300103
7925	7925
7926	7926	8
7927	7927
7928	7928	The Donald Trump Write -In Ballot
7929	7929	In the first protested ballot, from Precinct 4, block 37,
7930	7930	the voter filled in the oval next to Mr. Mirra’s name on the
7931	7931	ballot, but also filled in the oval for a write -in vote and
7932	7932	inserted the name “Donald Trump.”
7933	7933	The right of voters to write in the name of a person not
7934	7934	listed on the ballot for a particular office is well recognized,
7935	7935	in Massachusetts and across the country. In Massachusetts, the
7936	7936	relevant statute reads as follows:
7937	7937	If the system used employs the paper ballot, every vote
7938	7938	cast for any person whose name d oes not appear upon said
7939	7939	ballot as a nominated candidate for the particular
7940	7940	office shall be written or affixed by sticker or paster
7941	7941	in the appropriate place provided on said ballot for the
7942	7942	purpose or it shall not be counted. This section shall
7943	7943	not be construed to limit in any way the right of the
7944	7944	voter to write in his choice for any office in the
7945	7945	appropriate space provided.
7946	7946
7947	7947	G.L. c. 54, § 33E. While G.L. c. 54, § 77 directs voters to
7948	7948	include the residence of the person who the voter write in on
7949	7949	the ballot, the residence is directory, rather than mandatory,
7950	7950	and will not affect the voter’s decision. See Maiewski v. Board
7951	7951	of Registrars of Voters of Deerfield , 347 Mass. 681, 682-683
7952	7952	(1964).
7953	7953	On the ballots themselves, voters were instructed “[t]o
7954	7954
7955	7955	December 29, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. , Counsel for Ms. Kassner was unable to
7956	7956	review those ballots prior to the Court-imposed deadline for filing this
7957	7957	Opposition, and her counsel must rely, instead, on his own recollection from
7958	7958	the recount.
7959	7959	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
7960	7960	Superior Court - Essex
7961	7961	Docket Number 2277CV0124300104
7962	7962
7963	7963	9
7964	7964
7965	7965	vote for a person not on the ballot, write the person’s name and
7966	7966	residence in the blank space provided, and fill in the oval.”
7967	7967	There is no question but that “Donald Trump” i s a person, and is
7968	7968	eligible to be a voter’s write -in choice. There is no
7969	7969	requirement that a write-in candidate be eligible to take
7970	7970	office.
7971	7971	Moreover, an examination of the remainder of the ballot
7972	7972	demonstrates that this particular voter knew exactly what he or
7973	7973	she was doing. The voter filled in ovals throughout the ballot ,
7974	7974	and wrote in Donald Trump’s name a second time for the office
7975	7975	directly below that of State Representative. Mr. Mirra would
7976	7976	agree that the second vote for Donald Trump was a legitima te
7977	7977	write-in vote, but then contend that the exact same vote
7978	7978	immediately above that vote was not legitimate.
7979	7979	Voters were also directed to vote for “ONE” candidate for
7980	7980	State Representative. Any vote for more than one candidate for
7981	7981	State Representative would be considered an over-vote and would
7982	7982	not count. Although the ballot at the counting table was called
7983	7983	a vote for Mirra, the Board of Registrars unanimously determined
7984	7984	the ballot to be an over-vote and called it a blank vote.
7985	7985	The Second Disputed Ballot
7986	7986	The second decision by the Registrars in Ipswich that Mr.
7987	7987	Mirra seeks to overturn – from Precinct 1, block 19 – is a
7988	7988	ballot with unusual markings. This voter did not fill in any of
7989	7989	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
7990	7990	Superior Court - Essex
7991	7991	Docket Number 2277CV0124300105
7992	7992
7993	7993	10
7994	7994
7995	7995	the ovals but, instead, consistently used a form of scribbling
7996	7996	to mark his or her ballot. The ballot ’s scribbles are mostly
7997	7997	consistent throughout the ballot , except that, in the State
7998	7998	Representative block, and only in that block, it appears that
7999	7999	the voter made two separate markings. One of the markings is
8000	8000	clearly in the oval for Mr. Mirra, but the second marking is
8001	8001	entirely separate, not an extension of the first marking as Mr.
8002	8002	Mirra contends, and touches on the oval for Ms. Kassner.
8003	8003	It is not clear what this voter intended, but the
8004	8004	Registrars viewed the ballot as two separate votes , one for each
8005	8005	of the candidates for State Representative . The ballot was
8006	8006	called for Mirra at the counting table, but the Board of
8007	8007	Registrars determined that it was an overvote and called it a
8008	8008	blank.
8009	8009	While this Court’s review of ballots is de novo, it is also
8010	8010	the case that votes counted by election officials are presumed
8011	8011	to be legal and any challenger of those votes has the burden of
8012	8012	overcoming that presumption. See McCavitt v. Registrars of
8013	8013	Voters of Brockton, 833 Mass. 833, 846 (1982).
8014	8014	As the Supreme Judicial Court stated in O’Brien v. Board of
8015	8015	Election Commissioner of the City of Boston , 257 Mass. 332
8016	8016	(1926):
8017	8017	The cardinal rule for guidance of election officers and
8018	8018	courts in cases of this nature is that if the intent of
8019	8019	the voter can be determined with reasonable certainty
8020	8020	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
8021	8021	Superior Court - Essex
8022	8022	Docket Number 2277CV0124300106
8023	8023
8024	8024	11
8025	8025
8026	8026	from an inspection of t he ballot, in the light of the
8027	8027	generally known conditions attendant upon the election,
8028	8028	effect must be given to that intent and the vote counted
8029	8029	in accordance therewith, provided the voter has
8030	8030	substantially complied with the requisites of the
8031	8031	election law; if that intent cannot thus be fairly and
8032	8032	satisfactorily ascertained, the ballot cannot rightly be
8033	8033	counted.
8034	8034
8035	8035	See id. at 338.
8036	8036	The Ipswich Registrars of Voters reviewed this ballot,
8037	8037	listened to extensive arguments from counsel for Mr. Mirra and
8038	8038	Ms. Kassner, and discussed the matter in depth themselves before
8039	8039	reaching the conclusion that the voter’s intent could not be
8040	8040	ascertained from the markings on the ballot. Unlike this Court,
8041	8041	and the counsel for the parties, the Registrars of Voters
8042	8042	regularly make such determinations and their determinations are
8043	8043	entitled to consideration. Those who reviewed the ballot
8044	8044	differed in their opinions, some viewing the ballot as a vote
8045	8045	for Mr. Mirra, others viewing the ballot as an overvote and
8046	8046	therefore a blank. But it is obvious that, in this one discrete
8047	8047	case, there is no way to ascertain the voters intention without
8048	8048	guessing at it.
8049	8049	Conclusion
8050	8050	FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, Defendant Kristin Kassner
8051	8051	respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reject the
8052	8052
8053	8053	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
8054	8054	Superior Court - Essex
8055	8055	Docket Number 2277CV0124300107
8056	8056
8057	8057	12
8058	8058
8059	8059	Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunctio n.
8060	8060	Respectfully submitted,
8061	8061
8062	8062	KRISTIN E. KASSNER,
8063	8063	By her attorney,
8064	8064
8065	8065	Gerald A. McDonough
8066	8066	__________________________________
8067	8067	Gerald A. McDonough, Esq.
8068	8068	BBO #559802
8069	8069	13 Hollis Street
8070	8070	Cambridge, MA 02140
8071	8071	(617) 529-1527
8072	8072	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
8073	8073
8074	8074	Dated: December 29, 2022
8075	8075
8076	8076
8077	8077
8078	8078	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
8079	8079
8080	8080
8081	8081	I, Gerald A McDonough, certify that I have served the attached
8082	8082	by causing copies to be delivered electronically to:
8083	8083
8084	8084
8085	8085	Counsel for Plaintiff Leonard Mirra:
8086	8086	Michael J. Sullivan, Esq.
8087	8087	J. Christopher Amrhein, Esq.
8088	8088	Ashcroft Law Firm
8089	8089	200 State Street, 7h Floor
8090	8090	Boston, MA 02109
8091	8091	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
8092	8092	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
8093	8093
8094	8094	Counsel for Defendant William Galvin:
8095	8095	Anne Sterman, Esq.
8096	8096	Adam Hornstine, Esq.
8097	8097	Assistant Attorneys General
8098	8098	Office of the Attorney General
8099	8099	One Ashburton Place
8100	8100	Boston, MA 02108
8101	8101	Anne.Sterman@mass.gov
8102	8102	Adam.Hornstine@mass.gov
8103	8103
8104	8104	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
8105	8105	Superior Court - Essex
8106	8106	Docket Number 2277CV0124300108
8107	8107
8108	8108	13
8109	8109
8110	8110	Counsel for Georgetown Defendants:
8111	8111	Lauren Goldberg, Esq.
8112	8112	Deval C. Braun, Esq.
8113	8113	KP Law, PC
8114	8114	101 Arch Street
8115	8115	Boston, MA 02110
8116	8116	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
8117	8117	DBraun@k-plaw.com
8118	8118
8119	8119	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants:
8120	8120	George A. Hall, Jr., Esq.
8121	8121	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
8122	8122	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
8123	8123	Boston, MA 02109
8124	8124	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
8125	8125
8126	8126	Counsel for Rowley Defendants:
8127	8127	Yael Magen, Esq.
8128	8128	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
8129	8129	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
8130	8130	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
8131	8131	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
8132	8132
8133	8133
8134	8134	Gerald A. McDonough
8135	8135	Gerald A. McDonough
8136	8136
8137	8137
8138	8138	Dated: December 29, 2022
8139	8139
8140	8140
8141	8141
8142	8142
8143	8143	Date Filed 12/29/2022 10:38 AM
8144	8144	Superior Court - Essex
8145	8145	Docket Number 2277CV0124300109 1
8146	8146
8147	8147	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
8148	8148
8149	8149	ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
8150	8150	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2277-CV-01243
8151	8151
8152	8152
8153	8153	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
8154	8154
8155	8155	Plaintiff,
8156	8156
8157	8157	v.
8158	8158
8159	8159	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF
8160	8160	VOTERS,
8161	8161	TOWN OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
8162	8162	TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH,
8163	8163	TOWN OF ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
8164	8164	TOWN CLERK FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY,
8165	8165	and
8166	8166	WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as
8167	8167	Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
8168	8168
8169	8169	Defendants,
8170	8170
8171	8171	and
8172	8172
8173	8173	KRISTIN KASSNER,
8174	8174
8175	8175	Intervenor.
8176	8176
8177	8177
8178	8178	PLAINTIFF’S OMNIBUS REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY
8179	8179	MOTION FOR EXPEDITED AND LIMITED DE NOVO REVIEW
8180	8180	AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
8181	8181
8182	8182	Plaintiff Leonard Mirra hereby replies to Intervenor Kristin Kassner’s opposition
8183	8183	(“Kassner Opposition”), Defendant Secretary William F. Galvin’s opposition (“Secretary’s
8184	8184	Opposition”), and the Defendant Town Registrars and Clerks’ opposition (“Municipal Defendants’
8185	8185	Opposition”) (together, the “Oppositions”) to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Expedited and
8186	8186	Limited De Novo Review of Two Challenged Ballots, and Preliminary Injunction Staying
8187	8187	Swearing-In (“Emergency Motion”).
8188	8188	Date Filed 12/29/2022 2:43 PM
8189	8189	Superior Court - Essex
8190	8190	Docket Number 2277CV01243
8191	8191	1900110 2
8192	8192
8193	8193	ARGUMENT
8194	8194	I. THE OPPOSITIONS’ ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF PRESENTS AN
8195	8195	INCOMPLETE RECORD WHOLLY IGNORES MASSACHUSETTS LAW
8196	8196	REGARDING BALLOT PRESERVATION, RECOUNT CHALLENGES , AND
8197	8197	PRODUCING COPIES OF BALLOTS
8198	8198
8199	8199	Plaintiff’s Complaint and the record before this Court reflect Massachusetts’ election
8200	8200	statutes and the process created by the legislature by which said statutes are enforced. The
8201	8201	Oppositions’ assertions suggesting otherwise are hardly sincere.
8202	8202	As this Court is well aware, Chapter 56 of the Massachusetts General Laws provides
8203	8203	requirements for ensuring integrity and truthfulness in the marking of ballots, Mass. Gen. Laws
8204	8204	ch. 56, § 25, and establishes this Court’s jurisdiction to make legal determinations and to issue
8205	8205	certain equitable orders pursuant to its authority to enforce the various laws regulating the conduct
8206	8206	of elections. Id. § 59 (“Section 59”). The secret ballot is fundamental to the rights of citizens of
8207	8207	the Commonwealth and, accordingly, state election statutes do not authorize or require candidates
8208	8208	to create documentation, e.g., photographs, regarding irregular or contested ballots in real-time;
8209	8209	rather, the statute provides for judicial review of such ballots by the Superior Court after the
8210	8210	election and recount are complete.
8211	8211	The Oppositions know perfectly well that “[t]he main purpose of the election statute is to
8212	8212	provide a convenient method for the voter qualified according to law to express in secret his
8213	8213	preference for persons to be elected to the several offices to be filled, and on the questions to be
8214	8214	answered at an election, and to have that expression of preference counted fairly and honestly, all
8215	8215	in conformity to reasonable regulations.” Opinion of the Justs., 362 Mass. 907, 912 (1972). It is
8216	8216	further evident that the election requirements themselves generate the record of which Plaintiff is
8217	8217	seeking review. See id. (“The statutes of the Commonwealth contain in great detail requirements
8218	8218	as to the preparation and distribution of ballots, the marking and deposit of them in ballot boxes,
8219	8219	Date Filed 12/29/2022 2:43 PM
8220	8220	Superior Court - Essex
8221	8221	Docket Number 2277CV0124300111 3
8222	8222
8223	8223	the counting of those ballots and the making of official returns of the results of the voting.”). The
8224	8224	notion that a candidate must compile a “complete” record in order to obtain expedited de
8225	8225	novo review and preliminary relief under Section 59 is nowhere to be found in statutes or caselaw,
8226	8226	and is nonsensical in light of the function of the statute. See McCarthy v. Sec’y of Com., 371 Mass.
8227	8227	667, 676–77 (1977) (discussing Superior Court’s broad equity power under Section 59 and power
8228	8228	to conduct de novo review).
8229	8229	II. THE PUBLIC HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN ENSURING THAT
8230	8230	ELECTIONS ARE FAIR, ALL LAWFUL VOTES ARE COUNTED, AND ALL
8231	8231	UNLAWFUL VOTES ARE REJECTED
8232	8232
8233	8233	The Oppositions—particularly Municipal Defendants’ Opposition—offer inconsistent
8234	8234	arguments, including implying that the finality of an election is of greater importance than the
8235	8235	accuracy of the results. Such disingenuous maneuvers serve only to protect the actions of the
8236	8236	Defendants and interests of Ms. Kassner, not to protect the integrity of the Election.
8237	8237	For example, the Municipal Defendants’ Opposition argues that the “finality of elections,”
8238	8238	the “preservation of judicial economy,” and “judicial restraint” are in the interest of the public.
8239	8239	Municipal Defs. Opp’n at 4–5. Plaintiff agrees that those factors, in principle, are of public interest.
8240	8240	But these factors must be applied in the context of this case. Here, the crux of this policy-rooted
8241	8241	argument plainly ignores the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, including the two Ipswich ballots
8242	8242	challenged and preserved by Plaintiff Mirra that Plaintiff argues—on their own—have the ability
8243	8243	to, after judicial de novo review, show that the result of the Election may be entirely different.
8244	8244	Further, the public interest in free and fair elections that are determined by the will of the voters,
8245	8245	not by the actions by the Municipal Defendants, remains unassailable. See Mass. Decl. of Rights
8246	8246	art. 9; see also Compl. ¶¶ 37–94 Accordingly, the policy factors do not weigh in Defendants’ favor
8247	8247	and instead weigh in favor of reviewing the challenged ballots and issuing the appropriate relief to
8248	8248	Date Filed 12/29/2022 2:43 PM
8249	8249	Superior Court - Essex
8250	8250	Docket Number 2277CV0124300112 4
8251	8251
8252	8252	ensure that accurate results are transmitted to the House so that the House does not act on an
8253	8253	Election where the results are in doubt. This Court’s de novo review of the challenged ballots and
8254	8254	injunctive relief will protect the integrity of the Election; otherwise, the irregularities and unlawful
8255	8255	actions of the Municipal Defendants will, in effect, disenfranchise voters who intended to cast their
8256	8256	vote for Plaintiff Mirra in an Election that is currently separated by one (1) vote.
8257	8257	III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND EMERGENCY MOTION WERE TIM ELY
8258	8258	FILED, AND SECTION 59 GIVES THIS COURT AUTHORITY TO ENJOIN THE
8259	8259	DELIVERY OF CERTIFICATION, LEAVING THE SEAT VACANT, AND TH US
8260	8260	DELAYING THE SWEARING -IN
8261	8261
8262	8262	The Kassner Opposition tries to re-litigate its motion to dismiss by suggesting that
8263	8263	Plaintiff’s Complaint and Emergency Motion were not timely filed and that this Court does not
8264	8264	have jurisdiction to hear either. See Kassner Opp’n at 3–5. Unfortunately for Ms. Kassner, the
8265	8265	Plaintiff, the Secretary, and the Municipal Defendants all agree that this Court has, at this juncture,
8266	8266	broad jurisdiction under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 56, § 59 (“Section 59”) to conduct a de novo review
8267	8267	of the contested ballots and award relief in equity. See Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss at 3–6; Sec’y
8268	8268	Opp’n at 1–3; Municipal Defs. Opp’n at 5. Further, Ms. Kassner’s argument that Plaintiff’s
8269	8269	Complaint and Emergency Motion are barred by the doctrine of laches is too without merit and
8270	8270	refuted by the Plaintiff, the Secretary, and the Municipal Defendants because the Court can
8271	8271	presently hear this dispute and issue an award pursuant to Section 59. See Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. to
8272	8272	Dismiss at 3–6; Sec’y Opp’n at 3 (House would not have jurisdiction until January 4, 2023);
8273	8273	Municipal Defs. Opp’n at 5 (House would not have jurisdiction until January 4, 2023).
8274	8274	The Secretary’s Opposition makes an important distinction concerning what this Court may
8275	8275	order in advance of January 4, 2023, in accordance with the powers afforded to it under Section
8276	8276	59. Specifically, the Secretary stated that this Court can “temporarily order the Secretary to refrain
8277	8277	from transmitting election results to the House[,]” Sec’y Opp’n at 3–4, and that “[u]nder this
8278	8278	Date Filed 12/29/2022 2:43 PM
8279	8279	Superior Court - Essex
8280	8280	Docket Number 2277CV0124300113 5
8281	8281
8282	8282	scenario . . . the [] seat contested in this [E]lection would remain vacant” until the House decides
8283	8283	to act or until this Court further orders the Secretary to make return of results. Id. at 4. After a de
8284	8284	novo review of the contested ballots—particularly the requested two Ipswich ballots that were
8285	8285	called for Plaintiff and unlawfully ruled as blanks by the Ipswich Registrars—this Court will see
8286	8286	that the Election results show Plaintiff Mirra was the winner.
8287	8287	1
8288	8288
8289	8289	2
8290	8290	This Court may then exercise its
8291	8291	powers pursuant to Section 59 and order the Secretary to refrain from transmitting the Election
8292	8292	results to the House, thereby leaving the seat vacant for a short period of time consistent with the
8293	8293	expectations under the law, and thus delaying the swearing-in.
8294	8294	IV. PLAINTIFF MIRRA WILL BE IRREPARABLY HARMED IF THE COURT DOES
8295	8295	NOT ISSUE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
8296	8296
8297	8297	Without judicial intervention and action before January 4, 2023, Plaintiff Mirra will be
8298	8298	irreparably harmed. Plaintiff Mirra will suffer a loss of his right to seek public office by way of a
8299	8299	fair election free of doubt and irregularities in accordance with the Commonwealth’s Declaration
8300	8300	of Rights and Constitution. See Boston Teachers Union, Loc. 66 v. City of Boston, 382 Mass. 553,
8301	8301	556 (1981) (“When the balance of the equities favors the moving party, the preliminary injunction
8302	8302	may properly issue.”).
8303	8303	CONCLUSION
8304	8304	Plaintiff Mirra requests that this Court grant the requested relief, including temporarily
8305	8305	ordering the Secretary to refrain from transmitting the results of this Election to the House.
8306	8306
8307	8307	1
8308	8308	It should be noted that the Municipal Defendants’ Opposition and Kassner’s Opposition dedicate
8309	8309	several pages to refute the challenged ballots detailed in the Complaint. Much of the contentions
8310	8310	made in those two oppositions rely on either memory or alleged deference to the registrars,
8311	8311	ignoring that this Court has the power to review the ballots de novo and issue its own determination
8312	8312	on the ballots—very purpose of Section 59 in disputes of this nature.
8313	8313	2
8314	8314	It should also be noted that the Municipal Defendants mischaracterized—deliberately or
8315	8315	otherwise—the allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint about the ballot challenged from Ipswich
8316	8316	precinct 4, block 37. Compare Compl. ¶ 57 with Municipal Defs.’ Opp’n at 11.
8317	8317	Date Filed 12/29/2022 2:43 PM
8318	8318	Superior Court - Essex
8319	8319	Docket Number 2277CV0124300114 6
8320	8320
8321	8321
8322	8322
8323	8323	Dated: December 29, 2022
8324	8324
8325	8325	Respectfully submitted by,
8326	8326
8327	8327	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
8328	8328	Michael J. Sullivan
8329	8329	MA BBO # 487210
8330	8330	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
8331	8331	MA BBO # 703170
8332	8332	Ashcroft Law Firm
8333	8333	200 State Street, 7th Floor
8334	8334	Boston, Massachusetts 02109
8335	8335	T: 617-573-9400
8336	8336	E: msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
8337	8337	E: camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
8338	8338
8339	8339	Attorney for Plaintiff
8340	8340	Leonard Mirra
8341	8341
8342	8342
8343	8343	Date Filed 12/29/2022 2:43 PM
8344	8344	Superior Court - Essex
8345	8345	Docket Number 2277CV0124300115 7
8346	8346
8347	8347	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
8348	8348
8349	8349	I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the below via
8350	8350	electronic mail on December 29, 2022:
8351	8351	Counsel for Secretary Galvin
8352	8352	Anne Sterman
8353	8353	Adam Hornstine
8354	8354	Office of the Attorney General
8355	8355	One Ashburton Place
8356	8356	Boston, MA 02108
8357	8357	617-963-2524
8358	8358	anne.sterman@state.ma.us
8359	8359	adam.hornstine@state.ma.us
8360	8360
8361	8361	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants
8362	8362	George A. Hall, Jr.
8363	8363	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
8364	8364	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
8365	8365	Boston, MA 02109
8366	8366	617-621-6530
8367	8367	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
8368	8368
8369	8369	Counsel for Rowley Defendants
8370	8370	Yael Magen
8371	8371	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
8372	8372	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
8373	8373	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
8374	8374	781-245-2284 ext.2
8375	8375	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
8376	8376
8377	8377	Counsel for Georgetown
8378	8378	Lauren F. Goldberg
8379	8379	KP Law, P.C.
8380	8380	101 Arch Street, 12th Floor
8381	8381	Boston, MA 02110
8382	8382	(617) 654-1759
8383	8383	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
8384	8384
8385	8385	Counsel for Kristin Kassner, Proposed
8386	8386	Intervenor
8387	8387	Gerald A. McDonough
8388	8388	Attorney-at-Law
8389	8389	13 Hollis Street
8390	8390	Cambridge, MA 02140
8391	8391	(617) 529-1527
8392	8392	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
8393	8393
8394	8394	/s/ J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
8395	8395	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
8396	8396
8397	8397	Date Filed 12/29/2022 2:43 PM
8398	8398	Superior Court - Essex
8399	8399	Docket Number 2277CV0124300116 00117 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
8400	8400	'
8401	8401	ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
8402	8402	CIVIL ACTION
8403	8403	NO. 2277CV01243
8404	8404	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA
8405	8405	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF VOTERS & others
8406	8406	1
8407	8407	•
8408	8408	2
8409	8409	MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON:
8410	8410	(1) PLAINTIFF'S
8411	8411	EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
8412	8412	AND LIMITED DE NOVO REVIEW OF TWO CHALLENGED BALLOTS:
8413	8413	AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STAYING SWEARING-IN: AND
8414	8414	(2) THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT KRISTIN KASSNER'S MOTION TO DISJViISS
8415	8415	Plaintiff Leonard Mirra a/k/a Lenny Mirra ("Mirra'') filed this civil action electronically
8416	8416	after the close
8417	8417	of business on December 21, 2022, contesting the results of the November 8,
8418	8418	2022, Second Essex District State Representative election (the "Election"). His Complaint seeks
8419	8419	an expedited review of the ballots challenged and preserved at the December 2022 district-wide
8420	8420	Election recount (the "Recount") and requests declaratory
8421	8421	relief in the form of a declaration that
8422	8422	he is the rightful winner
8423	8423	of the Election. Named as defendants are the election authorities for
8424	8424	three
8425	8425	of the six towns
8426	8426	3
8427	8427	in the Second Essex District (the Town of Georgetown Registrars of
8428	8428	Voters, Town oflpswich Registrars of Voters, Town Clerk of the Town of!pswich, Town of
8429	8429	Rowley Registrars of Voters, Town Clerk for the Town of Rowley) (the "Municipal
8430	8430	1
8431	8431	Town of!pswich Registrars of Voters, Town Clerk of the Town cif!pswich, Town of Rowley
8432	8432	Registrars
8433	8433	of Voters, Town Clerk for the Town of Rowley, and William F. Galvin, in his official
8434	8434	capacity as Secretary
8435	8435	of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
8436	8436	2
8437	8437	Kristin Kassner was permitted to intervene as a third-party defendant.
8438	8438	3
8439	8439	The Second Essex District includes Georgetown, Hamilton, Ipswich, Newbury, Rawle:,, and
8440	8440	part
8441	8441	of Topsfield.
8442	8442	37 00118 Defendants"), as well as William F. Galvin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
8443	8443	Commonwealth
8444	8444	of Massachusetts (the "Secretary"). A motion to intervene filed by Mirra's
8445	8445	opponent and the winner of the Election following the Recount, Kristin Kassner ("Kassner"),
8446	8446	was allowed without opposition on December 27, 2022. The matter is
8447	8447	now before the comt on:
8448	8448	(1)
8449	8449	Mirra's "Emergency Motion for Expedited and Limited De Novo Review ofTwo Challenged
8450	8450	Ballots, and Preliminary Injunction Staying Swearing-in" (Paper No. 6.) (the
8451	8451	"PI Motion"); and
8452	8452	(2) Kassner's Motion to Dismiss (Paper No. 8) (the
8453	8453	"Motion to Dismiss"). The PI Motion was
8454	8454	filed
8455	8455	on December 23, 2022; and a hearing with counsel for all parties (including intervenor
8456	8456	Kristin-Kassner)
8457	8457	was held-via video conference on December 27, 2022. At that hearing, counsel
8458	8458	for Kassner advised
8459	8459	of his plan to file the-Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional grounds
8460	8460	immediately after the hearing.
8461	8461	As time is of the essence in this matter, the court gave him
8462	8462	permission to do so without complying with the requirements of Superior Court Rule 9 A, and
8463	8463	ordered
8464	8464	Mirra to file his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss by 12:30 p.m. on December 28,
8465	8465	2022. Following review of the parties' submissions, the PI Motion will be DENIED
8466	8466	4
8467	8467	and the
8468	8468	Motion to Dismiss will be
8469	8469	ALLOWED.
8470	8470	BACKGROUND
8471	8471	The following facts are taken from Mirra's Complaint, as well as the additional materials
8472	8472	submitted
8473	8473	by Kassner per this court's December 28, 2022 Order (Paper No. 13). Mirra, the
8474	8474	Republican Party Candidate for State Representative
8475	8475	in the Second Essex District, faced off
8476	8476	against Kassner, the Democratic Party candidate, in the Election. After the initial counting of the
8477	8477	. ballots,
8478	8478	Mirra received 11,754 votes and Kassner received 11,744 votes, making Mirra the
8479	8479	4
8480	8480	The court already denied Mirra's request for limited de novo review of just two challenged
8481	8481	ballots during the hearing
8482	8482	on December 27, 2022. Thus, what remains before the court on the PI
8483	8483	Motion is
8484	8484	Mirra' s request for a preliminary injunction.
8485	8485	2 00119 winner by a ten-vote margin. Kassner petitioned for a district-wide recount, which took place
8486	8486	over a four-day period from December 5 through December 8, 2022. After the Recount,
8487	8487	Kassner's total votes (11,763) exceeded
8488	8488	Mirra's total votes (11,762) by one vote. Therealler, the
8489	8489	Recount results were certified
8490	8490	by the Governor's Council, the certification was signed by the
8491	8491	Governor,
8492	8492	and the Secretary issued the certification to Kassner.
8493	8493	5
8494	8494	Mirra subsequently filed the
8495	8495	Complaint in the above-captioned matter
8496	8496	in this court after the close of business on December
8497	8497	21, 2022. Kassner intends to attend the swearing-in proceedings
8498	8498	of the House of Representatives
8499	8499	on January 4, 2023, at which time she will present her certification to the presiding officer.
8500	8500	STANDARDS OF REVIEW
8501	8501	I. Preliminary Iiliunction Standard of Review
8502	8502	The standard for granting a preliminary injunction is well settled.
8503	8503	In actions between
8504	8504	private parties, the moving party must show: (a) a likelihood
8505	8505	of success on the merits; (b) it will
8506	8506	suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief; and (c)
8507	8507	the anticipated harm to be suffered by
8508	8508	the movant
8509	8509	if the injunctive relief is denied outweighs the harm the opposing party will suffer if
8510	8510	the injunction is issued. Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Chenev, 380 Mass. 609,617 (1980).
8511	8511	"Where a party seeks to enjoin government action, the
8512	8512	judge als_o must 'determine that the
8513	8513	requested order promotes
8514	8514	the public interest, or, alternatively, that the equitable relief will not
8515	8515	adversely affect the
8516	8516	public."' Garcia v. Department ofHous. & Community Dev., 480 Mass.
8517	8517	736, 747 (2018), quoting Loyal Order
8518	8518	ofMoose, Inc .. Yarmouth Lodge# 2270 v. Board of
8519	8519	Health of Yarmouth, 439 Mass. 597,601 (2003); Commonwealth v. Mass. CRINC, 392 Mass.
8520	8520	79, 89 (1984).
8521	8521	5
8522	8522	Pursuant to General Laws c. 54, § 116, the Governor shall certify to the results of the election
8523	8523	for representatives and issue certificates
8524	8524	of election to such persons as appear to be chcsen to the
8525	8525	office
8526	8526	of representative.
8527	8527	3 00120 II. Motion to Dismiss Standard of Review
8528	8528	To survive a motion to dismiss under Mass. R. Civ.
8529	8529	P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege
8530	8530	facts "plausibly suggesting
8531	8531	... entitlement to relief{.]" Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451
8532	8532	Mass. 623, 636 (2008), quoting Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). In
8533	8533	determining whether a complaint meets this standard, the court accepts the factual allegations in
8534	8534	the complaint as true and draws reasonable inferences in favor
8535	8535	of the plaintiffs. Harrington v.
8536	8536	Costello, 467 Mass. 720, 724 (2014).
8537	8537	In contrast, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. l 2(b
8538	8538	)(I) for lack of subject
8539	8539	matter jurisdiction may be based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint
8540	8540	ot on additional
8541	8541	evidence submitted by the moving party.
8542	8542	If the motion is not supported by additional evidence, it
8543	8543	"presents a 'facial attack' based solely
8544	8544	on the allegations of the complaint" and the court must
8545	8545	assume the truth
8546	8546	of those allegations for the purpose of deciding whether it has subject matter
8547	8547	jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claim. Callahan
8548	8548	v. First Congregational Church of Haverhill,
8549	8549	441 Mass. 699, 709 (2004), quoting Hiles v. Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, 437 Mass.
8550	8550	'
8551	8551	505, 516 n.13 (2002). Jf, however, the moving party submits "documents and other materials
8552	8552	outside the pleadings"
8553	8553	in an attempt to "contest the accuracy (rather than the sufficiency) of the
8554	8554	jurisdictional facts pleaded by the plaintiff," the court must "address the merits
8555	8555	of the
8556	8556	jurisdictional claim by resolving the factual disputes between the plaintiff and the defendants."
8557	8557	Id at 710-711. Where the defendant makes such a "factual challenge," the factual allegations in
8558	8558	the complaint are not presumed to be true,
8559	8559	id at 711, and the evidence submitted regarding
8560	8560	subject
8561	8561	matter-jurisdiction is "not viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,"
8562	8562	Wooten
8563	8563	v. Crayton, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 187, 190 n.6 (2006).
8564	8564	4 00121 DISCUSSION
8565	8565	I. The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction
8566	8566	Kassner maintains that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the House
8567	8567	of
8568	8568	Representatives has exclusive jurisdiction over this contested election under the Massac~usetts
8569	8569	Constitution and, therefore, Mirra has failed
8570	8570	to state a claim for relief which can be grantqd.
8571	8571	Mirra asserts that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the election dispute until the
8572	8572	House
8573	8573	of Representatives takes action on the matter when it convenes on January 4; 2023. Based
8574	8574	on a review of the Massachusetts Constitution, relevant statutes, applicable case law, and the
8575	8575	unique posture
8576	8576	of this contested election, the court agrees with Kassner. Although Mirra is
8577	8577	correct in his assertion that the court has the authority to enforce the election laws and grant
8578	8578	related equitable relief, he ignores the constitutional limits
8579	8579	of the court's power.
8580	8580	General Laws c. 56,
8581	8581	§ 59,
8582	8582	6
8583	8583	grants the Superior Court jurisdiction to enforce the laws
8584	8584	regulating the conduct
8585	8585	of elections and the power to grant equitable relief to those injured by
8586	8586	violations
8587	8587	of those laws. Wheatlev v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 849,853
8588	8588	(2003). However, the Superior Court's power to remedy election irregularities
8589	8589	is limited by the
8590	8590	Massachusetts Constitution which provides,
8591	8591	in relevant part, that "[t]he house ofrepresentatives
8592	8592	shall be the judge
8593	8593	of the returns, elections, and qualifications of its ovm members .... " Part.II,
8594	8594	c.
8595	8595	1, § 3, art. 10, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. It is well established that the power
8596	8596	to pass upon the election and qualification
8597	8597	of its own members is vested exclusively in the House
8598	8598	of Representatives. Wheatley. 439 Mass. at 854 ("The House's role as the sole arbiter of a
8599	8599	6
8600	8600	General Laws c. 56, § 59, states in relevant part, "[t]he supreme judicial court and the superior
8601	8601	court department
8602	8602	of the trial court shall have jurisdiction of civil actions to enforce the provisions
8603	8603	of chapters fifty to fifty-six, inclusive, and may award relief formerly available in equity ofby
8604	8604	mandamus." Chapter 54 of the General Laws governs elections.
8605	8605	5 00122 petitioner's claim to a seat as a representative is by now firmly settled as a matter of State
8606	8606	constitutional law."); Greenwood v. Registrars
8607	8607	of Voters of Fitchburg. 282 Mass. 74, 79 (1933)
8608	8608	("Jurisdiction to pass upon the election and qualification
8609	8609	of its own members is thus vested
8610	8610	exclusively in the House
8611	8611	of Representatives."); Dinan v. Swig. 223 Mass. 516, 517 ( 1916) ("The
8612	8612	grant
8613	8613	of power is_ comprehensive, full and complete: It is necessarily exclusive, for the
8614	8614	Constitution contains no words permitting either branch
8615	8615	of the Legislature to delegate or share
8616	8616	that power."). The House
8617	8617	of Representatives has the final authority to decide a claim to a seat as
8618	8618	a representative. See Wheatley. 439 Mass. at 854-855 (holding that absent allegation
8619	8619	of violation
8620	8620	of federal law, only the House has jurisdiction to resolve a claim of election and "[n Jo other
8621	8621	department
8622	8622	of the government has any authority under the Constitution to adjudicate upon that
8623	8623	subject").
8624	8624	Kassner contends that Mirra's failure to commence this litigation until after the certificate
8625	8625	was issued to her is fatal to his attempt to vest jurisdiction in the Superior Court. The court
8626	8626	agrees. While the court is unaware
8627	8627	of any legal authority identifying the precise moment in time
8628	8628	when its jurisdiction under G. L. c. 56,
8629	8629	§ 59, ends and the House of Representatives' authority
8630	8630	pursuant to Part II, c. 1,
8631	8631	§ 3, _art. 10, of the Massachusetts Constitution begins, the court is
8632	8632	persuaded by Banks v. Election
8633	8633	Com'rs of Boston, 327 Mass. 509 (1951), in which the Supreme
8634	8634	Judicial Court addressed empowering language similar to the language in Part II, c ..
8635	8635	!, § 3, art. 10
8636	8636	of the Massachusetts Constitution. In Banks, the petitioners contested the results of a municipal
8637	8637	'
8638	8638	election after a recount. Under the municipal election laws, the board of election commissioners
8639	8639	of the city of Boston was· granted "all the powers and duties relating to the determination of the
8640	8640	results
8641	8641	of the election" and "[t]he city counsel shall be the judge of the election and qualifications
8642	8642	of its members" (quotations omitted). ·Banks, 327 Mass. at 512. The Supreme Judicial Court ·
8643	8643	6 00123 ruled that the court had jurisdiction to review the election results "until the board determines
8644	8644	such results and issues a certificate to whom it has determined to have received the vote
8645	8645	necessary for election." Id. Following the reasoning in Banks, this court no longer has
8646	8646	jurisdiction to review the results
8647	8647	of the election since the Governor has issued a certificate to
8648	8648	Kassner. See id. ("Up to the point that a certificate has been issued, at least, the matter is in
8649	8649	control
8650	8650	of the court, which may in proper proceedings direct the board to whom to issue the
8651	8651	certificate.")
8652	8652	While Mirra claims that the fact that the election results have been certified has no
8653	8653	bearing on the court's jurisdiction because the House
8654	8654	of Representatives has not yet convened,
8655	8655	the court is not persuaded by this argument given the unique posture
8656	8656	of this case where the
8657	8657	election results have been certified but not yet presented to the House
8658	8658	of Representatives. The
8659	8659	cases cited by Mirra in support
8660	8660	of his argument that the court retains jurisdiction are
8661	8661	unpersuasive, as they all involved elections to offices other than State Representative, where the
8662	8662	courts were not constrained by the constitutional provision at issue here and in Wheatlev. See
8663	8663	Delahunt
8664	8664	v. Johnston, 423 Mass. 731 (1996) (primary for nomination of Democratic Party for
8665	8665	office
8666	8666	of United States Representative for Tenth Congressional District); Colten v. Haverhill, 409
8667	8667	Mass. 55 (1991) (city council election); Connolly v. Secretary
8668	8668	of the Commonwealth, 404 Mass.
8669	8669	556 (1989) (Democratic primary election and general election for office
8670	8670	of Governor's
8671	8671	Councillor for Third District);
8672	8672	7
8673	8673	McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters of Brockton, 385 Mass. 333
8674	8674	(1982) (mayoral election).
8675	8675	Nor is the case of Alicea v. Southbridge Registrars of Voters, Mass.
8676	8676	7
8677	8677	Connolly is further distinguishable because the preliminary injunction in that case was entered
8678	8678	prior to the certification
8679	8679	of the election results by the Governor and, the Executive Council, and
8680	8680	restrained the Secretary from transmitting the results to the Governor and the Executive Council
8681	8681	for certification. 404 Mass. at 559.
8682	8682	7 00124 Super Ct. No. 1085CV02624, helpful to Mirra's cause. In that case, the Superior Court held a
8683	8683	trial on the merits in a challenge to an election for the Office
8684	8684	of State Representative for the Sixth
8685	8685	Worcester District, but the plaintiff filed suit on November 29, 2010, in advance
8686	8686	of the
8687	8687	certification, and his opponent filed a counterclaim. The parties, thus, accepted jurisdiction and
8688	8688	never litigated the issue
8689	8689	of jurisdiction. As a result, Alicea pas no bearing on this court's
8690	8690	analysis.
8691	8691	For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
8692	8692	hear this dispute.
8693	8693	II. The Court Lacks Authority to Issue the Injunctive Relief Sought
8694	8694	The court also notes that it lacks the authority to issue the injunctive relief sought by
8695	8695	Mirra, specifically, to stay Kassner's swearing in
8696	8696	on January 4, 2023', until this litigation has
8697	8697	been fully resolved. The Constitution requires that State Representatives must be sworn in by the
8698	8698	Governor. and the Governor's Council in the presence
8699	8699	of the two houses of assembly. Prut II, c.
8700	8700	6, art. I
8701	8701	of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. The Governor, the Governor's Council, and
8702	8702	the House
8703	8703	of Representatives are not named as parties to this action. As the Secretary correctly
8704	8704	points out, the most the court could do
8705	8705	if it chose to enter injunctive relief in Mirra's favor would
8706	8706	be to temporarily order the Secretary to refrain from transmitting election results to the House
8707	8707	clerk.&
8708	8708	III. Entry of a Preliminary Injunction Would be Futile
8709	8709	Finally, even
8710	8710	if this court were to conclude that it has jurisdiction to hear this dispute, the
8711	8711	entry
8712	8712	of a preliminary injunction in Mirra' s favor would be futile and a waste of judicial and
8713	8713	8
8714	8714	Pursuant to General Laws c. 3, § 1, the Secretary shall transmit to the House of Representatives
8715	8715	as soon as the members are called to order a certified copy
8716	8716	of each certificate of examination of
8717	8717	the copies of records of votes cast as transmitted to him by the Governor.
8718	8718	8 00125 municipal resources. For whatever reason, Mirra waited until just before Christmas to file suit,
8719	8719	with the swearing-in set to occur
8720	8720	on January 4, 2023. While the court could make a judge
8721	8721	available for a trial
8722	8722	on the merits on an expedited basis, it would be impossible to complete a trial
8723	8723	by January 4, 2023. Not surprisingly, certain necessary witnesses are unavailable
8724	8724	on sucn short
8725	8725	notice during the week between Christmas and New Year's Day that is commonly used for
8726	8726	vacation by many people.
8727	8727	9
8728	8728	Also not surprising is Kassner's representation at the December 27
8729	8729	hearing that, before a trial on the merits, she would likely seek to implead the remaining three
8730	8730	municipalities included in the Second Essex District, which Mirra did not name as defendants in
8731	8731	his Complaint, so that any protested ballots from those municipalities could be included in the
8732	8732	court's analysis. After January 4, 2023, any action taken by this court would be nothing more
8733	8733	than evidence that Mirra and Kassner may present to the House
8734	8734	of Representatives in support of
8735	8735	their respective claims of election. See Wheatley, 439 Mass. at 852, 854.
8736	8736	IV. Review
8737	8737	of Ballots
8738	8738	As the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to hear this dispute, the court need not
8739	8739	reach Mirra's substantive arguments regarding the protested ballots. Following the hearii!g on
8740	8740	December 27, 2022, the court ordered the Municipal Defendants to produce "[a]ll protested
8741	8741	ballots sealed and segregated by the registrars pursuant
8742	8742	to G. L. c. 54, § 135, as set forth in the
8743	8743	Plaintiffs Complaint" to the court clerk's office by 10 a.m. on December 29, 2022, in
8744	8744	connection with considering the merits
8745	8745	ofMirra's request for injunctive relief. Ballots from all
8746	8746	three towns were produced in accordance with that order and secured in the clerk's office by the
8747	8747	9
8748	8748	It was represented at the hearing, for example, that two of the three town clerks for the
8749	8749	municipalities named as defendants are on vacation.
8750	8750	9 00126 ,,
8751	8751	afternoon December 28, 2022. Given the court's above conclusions, the court never opened the
8752	8752	ballots produced and shall arrange for their return to the Municipal Defendants.
8753	8753	I
8754	8754	"
8755	8755	' ,,
8756	8756	I
8757	8757	V. Conclusion
8758	8758	For all
8759	8759	of the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter
8760	8760	jurisdiction to hear this dispute, that it lacks the authority to issue the injunctive relief sought,
8761	8761	and that, in any event, any action taken by the court at this stage
8762	8762	in the proceedings would be an
8763	8763	I
8764	8764	exercise in futility. As a result, Mirra lacks a likelihood of success on the merits, his PI "4otion
8765	8765	must be denied, and Kassner's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Mass.
8766	8766	R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l) ahd
8767	8767	' "
8768	8768	I
8769	8769	12(b)(6) must be allowed.
8770	8770	ORDER
8771	8771	For the foregoing reasons, it is.hereby ORDERED:
8772	8772	1. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Expedited and Limited De Novo Review ·of Two
8773	8773	,,
8774	8774	Challenged Ballots, and Preliminary Injunction Staying Swearing-in (Paper No. 6) is
8775	8775	DENIED.
8776	8776	2. Third Party Defendant Kristin Kassner's Motion to Dismiss (Paper No. 8) is ALLbWED.
8777	8777	Thomas Drechsler
8778	8778	Associate Justice
8779	8779	of the Superior Coµrt
8780	8780	'
8781	8781	Dated: December 29, 2022 00127 Trial Court of Massachusetts
8782	8782	A
8783	8783	@ JUDGMENT ON MOTION TO DISMISS The Superior Court
8784	8784	DOCKET NUMBER
8785	8785	Thomas H. Driscoll. Jr .• Clerk of Courts
8786	8786	2277CV01243
8787	8787	CASE NAME
8788	8788	COURT NAME & ADDRESS
8789	8789	Leonard Mirra Also Known As Lenny Mirra
8790	8790	Essex Countv Superior CDu,1-Newburyport
8791	8791	vs.
8792	8792	145 Hir:ih Street
8793	8793	Town of Georgetown Registrars of Voters et al Newburyport, MA 01950
8794	8794	·JUDGMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANT{S}
8795	8795	Kassner, Kristin
8796	8796	JUDGMENT AGAINST THE FOLLOVV!NG PLAINT!FF(S)
8797	8797	Leonard Mirra Also Known As Lenny Mirra
8798	8798	. '
8799	8799	This action came
8800	8800	on before the Court, Hon. Thomas Drechsler, presiding, and upon review of the motion to dismiss pursuant
8801	8801	to Mass. R.Civ.P. 12(b),
8802	8802	It is
8803	8803	ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
8804	8804	That the complaint of the plaintiff, Leonard Mirra, against all of the defendants be and hereby is DISMISSED.
8805	8805	'
8806	8806	/I
8807	8807	DATE JUDGMENT ENTERED -
8808	8808	··-ASiT. CLERK
8809	8809	12/30/2022 y I -
8810	8810
8811	8811	;
8812	8812	-
8813	8813	Datemme Printed: 12-30-2022 08:47:04 SCV083 03/2016 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
8814	8814
8815	8815	ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
8816	8816	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2277-CV-01243
8817	8817
8818	8818
8819	8819	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
8820	8820
8821	8821	Plaintiff,
8822	8822
8823	8823	v. TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
8824	8824	TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH,
8825	8825	TOWN OF ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS,
8826	8826	TOWN CLERK FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY, and
8827	8827	WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
8828	8828	Defendants,
8829	8829	and
8830	8830	KRISTIN KASSNER,
8831	8831
8832	8832	Intervenor.
8833	8833
8834	8834
8835	8835	NOTICE OF APPEAL
8836	8836	Plaintiff Leonard Mirra, through undersigned counsel, gives notice that he appeals from
8837	8837	the Judgment on Motion to Dismiss entered by the Superior Court (Drechsler, T. ) on December
8838	8838	30, 2022, including the Memorandum of Decision and Order on: (1) Plaintiff ’s Emergency
8839	8839	Motion For Expedited and Limited De Novo Review Of Two Challenged Ballots and
8840	8840	Preliminary Injunction Staying Swearing-In; and (2) Third Party Defendant Kristin Kassner’s
8841	8841	Motion To Dismiss, dated December 29, 2023, and any oral rulings in connection with the
8842	8842	judgment, including those during the hearing on December 27, 2022. 00128
8843	8843	Dated: December 30, 2022
8844	8844
8845	8845	Respectfully submitted by,
8846	8846
8847	8847	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
8848	8848	Michael J. Sullivan
8849	8849	MA BBO # 487210
8850	8850	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
8851	8851	MA BBO # 703170
8852	8852	Ashcroft Law Firm
8853	8853	200 State Street, 7th Floor
8854	8854	Boston, Massachusetts 02109
8855	8855	T: 617-573-9400
8856	8856	E: msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
8857	8857	E: camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
8858	8858	Attorney for Plaintiff
8859	8859	Leonard Mirra
8860	8860	00129 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
8861	8861
8862	8862	I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the below via
8863	8863	electronic mail on December 30, 2022:
8864	8864	Counsel for Secretary Galvin
8865	8865	Anne Sterman
8866	8866	Adam Hornstine
8867	8867	Office of the Attorney General
8868	8868	One Ashburton Place
8869	8869	Boston, MA 02108
8870	8870	617-963-2524
8871	8871	anne.sterman@state.ma.us
8872	8872	adam.hornstine@state.ma.us
8873	8873
8874	8874	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants
8875	8875	George A. Hall, Jr.
8876	8876	Anderson & Kreiger LLP 50 Milk Street, 21st Floor Boston, MA 02109 617-621-6530 ghall@andersonkreiger.com
8877	8877
8878	8878	Counsel for Rowley Defendants
8879	8879	Yael Magen
8880	8880	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C. 40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12 Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940 781-245-2284 ext.2 yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
8881	8881
8882	8882	Counsel for Georgetown
8883	8883	Lauren F. Goldberg
8884	8884	KP Law, P.C. 101 Arch Street, 12th Floor Boston, MA 02110 (617) 654-1759 lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
8885	8885
8886	8886	Counsel for Kristin Kassner
8887	8887	Gerald A. McDonough
8888	8888	Attorney-at-Law
8889	8889	13 Hollis Street Cambridge, MA 02140 (617) 529-1527 gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
8890	8890
8891	8891	/s/ J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
8892	8892	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr. 00130 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
8893	8893	APPEALS COURT
8894	8894
8895	8895
8896	8896	Essex, ss.
8897	8897	Docket No. 2022-J-______
8898	8898	Superior Court Docket No. 2277-CV-01243
8899	8899	_________________________________________
8900	8900
8901	8901	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
8902	8902	Plaintiff-Petitioner,
8903	8903	v.
8904	8904
8905	8905	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGIST RARS OF VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH
8906	8906	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH,
8907	8907	TOWN OF ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK FOR THE
8908	8908	TOWN OF ROWLEY, and WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as
8909	8909	Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
8910	8910	Defendants-Respondents,
8911	8911	and
8912	8912	KRISTIN KASSNER,
8913	8913	Intervenor-Respondent.
8914	8914	_________________________________________
8915	8915
8916	8916	PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER LEONARD MIRRA ’S REQUEST FOR
8917	8917	INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO MASS. R. APP. P. 6
8918	8918	_________________________________________
8919	8919
8920	8920	MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
8921	8921	MA BBO # 487210
8922	8922	J. CHRISTOPHER AMRHEIN, JR.
8923	8923	MA BBO # 703170
8924	8924	ASHCROFT LAW FIRM, LLC
8925	8925	200 STATE STREET, 7TH FLOOR
8926	8926	BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109
8927	8927	PHONE: 617-573 -9400
8928	8928	msullivan @ashcroftlawfirm.com
8929	8929	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
8930	8930
8931	8931	Counsel for Plaintiff Leonard Mirra 00131 2
8932	8932	Now comes Petitio ner Leonard Mirra, appellant in the above -captioned
8933	8933	action and plaintiff below (hereafter “Mirra” or “Plaintiff” ) moving this Court for
8934	8934	an injunction pending appeal pursuant to Rule 6 of the Massachusetts Rules of
8935	8935	Appellate Procedure. Plaintiff petitions the Appeals Court for injunctive relief from
8936	8936	the Memorandum of Decision and Or der on Motion to Dismiss entered by the
8937	8937	Superior Court (Drechsler, T.) on December 29, 2022 (the “Order”) in Leonard
8938	8938	Mirra, Plaintiff, v. Town Georgetown Registrars of Voters, Town of Ipswich
8939	8939	Registrars of Voters, Town Clerk of the Town of Ipswich, Town of Rowley
8940	8940	Registrars of Voters, Town Clerk for the Town of Rowley, and William F. Galvin,
8941	8941	in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
8942	8942	Defendants, and Kristin Kassner, Intervenor , Civil Action No . 2277-CV-01243 ,
8943	8943	denying Petitioner ’s Emergency Motion for Expedited and Limited De Novo
8944	8944	Review of Two Challenged Ballots, and Preliminary Injunction Staying Swearing-
8945	8945	In (“Emergency Motion”) and allowing Third-Pa rty Defendant-Intervenor Kristin
8946	8946	Kassner’s Motion to Dismiss.
8947	8947	Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the Order on December 30, 2022. The
8948	8948	Appeal involves a requested review of the Superior Court’s determination that it
8949	8949	lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Mirra’s Emergency Motion. 00132 3
8950	8950	The House of Representatives is schedule to seat Ms. Kassner on
8951	8951	Wednesday, January 4, 2022, and unless injunctive relief is granted, Plaintiff’s
8952	8952	rights on appeal will be severely prejudiced.
8953	8953	The Superior Court’s Order contravenes Massachusetts law by dismissing
8954	8954	Petitioner’s Emergency Motion on the grounds that the Superi or Court lacked
8955	8955	subject matter jurisdiction. As explained in the accompanying supporting
8956	8956	memorandum of law, the court reached this erroneous legal conclusion without
8957	8957	considering the Plaintiff’s legal analysis—with which the Secretary concurred—
8958	8958	that nothing in Massachusetts’ election statutes divests the Superior Court’s
8959	8959	jurisdiction to enforce election laws and grant appropriate relief at this juncture of
8960	8960	the case.
8961	8961	This Court should intervene to protect the Commonwealth’s strong public
8962	8962	policy in this area of law, to reaffirm the trial court ’s important gatekeeper function
8963	8963	to enforce the Commonwealth’s election statutes, and to grant relief to the
8964	8964	Petitioners impacted by the Superior Court’s clearly erroneous ruling.
8965	8965	RECONSIDERATION
8966	8966	Petitioner has not and does not intend to file a motion for reconsideration in
8967	8967	the Superio r Court.
8968	8968	00133 4
8969	8969	REQUEST FOR RELIEF
8970	8970	Petitioner requests that the Appellate Court:
8971	8971	1. Grant injuncti ve relief ordering the Secretary to refrain from
8972	8972	transmitting the election results to the House, thereby leaving the seat vacant for a
8973	8973	short period of time consistent with the expectations under the law, and thus
8974	8974	delaying the swearing-in of Ms. Kassner pen ding the outcome of Plaintiff’s appeal
8975	8975	of the Order.
8976	8976	2. Grant such other relief as is just and appropriate ; and
8977	8977	3. Hold a hearing on this emergency request.
8978	8978
8979	8979	Respectfully submitted,
8980	8980
8981	8981	Plaintiff Leonard Mirra
8982	8982
8983	8983	By his attorneys,
8984	8984
8985	8985	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
8986	8986	MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
8987	8987	MA BBO # 487210
8988	8988	J. CHRISTOPHER AMRHEIN, JR.
8989	8989	MA BBO # 703170
8990	8990	ASHCROFT LAW FIRM, LLC
8991	8991	200 STATE STREET, 7TH FLOOR
8992	8992	BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109
8993	8993	PHONE: 617-573 -9400
8994	8994	msullivan@ashcr oftlawfirm.com
8995	8995	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
8996	8996
8997	8997	Dated: December 30, 2022 00134 5
8998	8998	CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
8999	8999
9000	9000	I hereby certify that this Supporting Memorandum of Law complies with the
9001	9001	length limits for proportionally spaced font under Mass. R. A. P. 6 because it is
9002	9002	produced in Times New Roman at size 14 and contains 442 non-excluded words as
9003	9003	counted using the word count feature of Word for Microsoft 365.
9004	9004	/s/Michael J. Sullivan
9005	9005	Michael J. Sullivan 00135 6
9006	9006	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9007	9007	I hereby certify that on December 30, 2022, I served this Petition,
9008	9008	Supporting Memorandum of Law, and Record Appendix as follows:
9009	9009	By e-mail on:
9010	9010
9011	9011	Counsel for Secretary Galvin Anne Sterman
9012	9012	Adam Hornstine
9013	9013	Office of the Attorney General
9014	9014	One Ashbu rton Place
9015	9015	Boston, MA 02108
9016	9016	617-963-2524
9017	9017	anne.sterman@state.ma.us
9018	9018	adam.hornstine@state.ma.us
9019	9019	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants George A. Hall, Jr.
9020	9020	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
9021	9021	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
9022	9022	Boston, MA 02109
9023	9023	617-621-6530
9024	9024	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
9025	9025	Counsel for Rowley Defendants Yael Magen
9026	9026	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
9027	9027	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
9028	9028	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
9029	9029	781-245-2284 ext.2
9030	9030	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
9031	9031	Counsel for Georgetown Lauren F. Goldberg
9032	9032	KP Law, P.C.
9033	9033	101 Arch Street, 12th Floor
9034	9034	Boston, MA 02110
9035	9035	(617) 654- 1759
9036	9036	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
9037	9037	Counsel for Kristin Kassner,
9038	9038	Proposed Intervenor
9039	9039	Gerald A. McDonough
9040	9040	Attorney-at-Law
9041	9041	13 Hollis Street
9042	9042	Cambridge, MA 02140 00136 7
9043	9043	(617) 529-1527
9044	9044	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
9045	9045
9046	9046	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
9047	9047	Michael J. Sullivan 00137 1
9048	9048	COMMONWEALTH OF
9049	9049	MASSACHUSETTS
9050	9050
9051	9051	APPEALS COURT
9052	9052
9053	9053
9054	9054	Essex, ss.
9055	9055	Docket No. 2022-J-______
9056	9056	Superior Court Docket No. 2277-CV-01243
9057	9057	_________________________________________
9058	9058
9059	9059	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
9060	9060	Plaintiff-Petitioner,
9061	9061	v.
9062	9062
9063	9063	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH
9064	9064	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH,
9065	9065	TOWN OF ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK FOR THE
9066	9066	TOWN OF ROWLEY, and WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as
9067	9067	Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
9068	9068	Defendants-Respondents,
9069	9069	and
9070	9070	KRISTIN KASSNER,
9071	9071	Intervenor-Respondent.
9072	9072	_________________________________________
9073	9073
9074	9074	PLAINTIFF- PETITIONER LEONARD MIRRA’S MEMORANDUM IN
9075	9075	SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO
9076	9076	MASS. R. APP. P. 6
9077	9077	_________________________________________
9078	9078
9079	9079	Counsel for Plaintiff
9080	9080	Leonard Mirra
9081	9081	MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
9082	9082	MA BBO # 487210
9083	9083	J. CHRISTOPHER AMRHEIN, JR.
9084	9084	MA BBO # 703170
9085	9085	ASHCROFT LAW FIRM, LLC
9086	9086	200 STATE STREET, 7TH FLOOR
9087	9087	BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109
9088	9088	PHONE: 617-573 -9400
9089	9089	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
9090	9090	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com 00138 2
9091	9091	Now comes Leonard Mirra, Petitioner in the above-captioned action and
9092	9092	plaintiff below (hereafter “Mr. Mirra” or “Petitioner”), and move this Court for an
9093	9093	injunction pending appeal pursuant to Rule 6 of the Massachusetts Rules of
9094	9094	Appellate Procedure.
9095	9095	This is an action relating to the November 8, 2022, Second Essex State
9096	9096	Representative election (“Election”), and the ballots challenged and preserved at the
9097	9097	December 2022 district-wide Election recount (“Recount”). Mr. Mirra was
9098	9098	originally determined to have won the Election. Instead of having lost the Election
9099	9099	by ten (10) votes, the Recount reported the Defendant-Respondent Kristin Kassner
9100	9100	(“Ms. Kassner”) to have won the Election over Mr. Mirra by just one (1) vote.
9101	9101	In an order dated December 29, 2022, Superior Court Judge Drechsler
9102	9102	dismissed Petitioner’s Complaint challenging this new result for lack of jurisdiction.
9103	9103	The Court entered judgment the following day, December 30, 2022. The Superior
9104	9104	Court’s ruling was based on the incorrect view that the House of Representatives
9105	9105	had exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute at this juncture.
9106	9106	The Superior Court premised its ruling on a novel question of law regarding
9107	9107	“the precise moment in time” when a trial court’s jurisdiction ends and the House of
9108	9108	Representatives’ jurisdiction begins. See Record Appendix (“RA”) at 206 (Dkt. 20)
9109	9109	(noting “the court is unaware of any legal authority” in support of its conclusion). 00139 3
9110	9110	The Superior Court answered this important constitutional question incorrectly and
9111	9111	improperly restricted the scope of state courts’ jurisdiction over such matters.
9112	9112	Notably, the Defendant- Respondent Secretary Galvin agrees that the Superior
9113	9113	Court’s jurisdictional ruling was incorrect and that the Superior Court has the
9114	9114	authority to temporarily order the Secretary to refrain from transmitting election
9115	9115	results to the House to ensure a just and correct election outcome. RA at 81– 82 (Dkt.
9116	9116	10). The Municipal Defendants-Respondents too agree that the Superior Court had
9117	9117	jurisdiction over the matter. RA at 182 (Dkt. 17).
9118	9118	Given its finding on jurisdiction, the Superior Court did not substantively
9119	9119	consider Mr. Mirra’s request for emergency and limited de novo review of two
9120	9120	challenged ballots, or otherwise his claim on the merits. RA at 205–210 (Dkt. 20).
9121	9121	This Appeal accordingly seeks review of the Superior Court’s dismissal of
9122	9122	Mr. Mirra’s C omplaint on jurisdictional grounds and additionally requests entry of
9123	9123	injunctive relief to permit Mr. Mirra to pursue his legal remedies. The House of
9124	9124	Representatives new political year begins on Wednesday, January 4 , 2023, marking
9125	9125	the first time it could possibly assert jurisdiction over this dispute. Accordingly,
9126	9126	unless injunctive relief is granted— which would have the effect of simply leaving
9127	9127	the seat vacant for the time being while accuracy of the Election and Recount result s
9128	9128	is being determined—Plaintiff’s rights will be severely prejudiced if not eliminated. 00140 4
9129	9129	Plaintiff respectfully submits that due to the emergency circumstances
9130	9130	surrounding this challenge, which involves preserving the integrity of the Election,
9131	9131	protecting the voters’ and candidates’ rights—which are fundamentally intertwined
9132	9132	under the Massachusetts Constitution—and ensuring every vote is accurately
9133	9133	counted, “application to the lower court for the relief sought is not practicable.”
9134	9134	Mass. R. App P. 6.
9135	9135	PROCEDURAL AND FACT
9136	9136	UAL BACKGROUND
9137	9137	This is an action relating to the November 8, 2022, Second Essex State
9138	9138	Representative election (“Election”), and the ballots challenged and preserved at the
9139	9139	December 2022 district- wide Election recount (“Recount”). The initial results of the
9140	9140	Election showed that Mr. Mirra received 10 votes more than Ms. Kassner. RA at 15
9141	9141	(Dkt. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 27). Ms. Kassner petitioned for a district- wide
9142	9142	recount (“Recount”). See id. (Compl. ¶ 29). After the Recount, Ms. Kassner
9143	9143	purportedly picked up a net of 11 votes, thus emerging as the alleged winner by one
9144	9144	(1) vote. RA at 12 (Compl. ¶ 8).
9145	9145	Mr. Mirra filed suit on December 21, 2022. RA at 11–25. The Complaint
9146	9146	detailed several challenged ballots that should have been called for Mr. Mirra, or
9147	9147	alternativity, should not have counted for Ms. Kassner. Id. The Complaint argued
9148	9148	that the actions, decisions, mistakes, and inaction by the Registrars and Town Clerks 00141 5
9149	9149	named as defendants were incorrect and unlawful, and materially changed the
9150	9150	Election results to the detriment of Mr. Mirra. Id.
9151	9151	On December 23, 2022, Mr. Mirra filed an Emergency Motion for Expedited
9152	9152	and Limited De Novo Review of Two Challenged Ballots, and Preliminary
9153	9153	Injunction Staying Swearing- In (“Emergency Motion”) pursuant to Mass. Super. Ct.
9154	9154	R. 9A(d)(1). The Emergency Motion asked the Superior Court to conduct an
9155	9155	expedited de novo review of two challenged ballots from the election recount
9156	9156	conducted in the Town of Ipswich on December 7, 2022. RA at 58–59, 61– 65 (Dkt.
9157	9157	6, 6.1). The central contention of Mr. Mirra’s Emergency Motion was the court’s
9158	9158	review of the ballots will show that the Election is, at a minimum, a tie between Mr.
9159	9159	Mirra and the purported winner Ms. Kassner. In conjunction with the request for
9160	9160	expedited de novo review, Mr. Mirra’s Emergency Motion also requested that the
9161	9161	Superior Court issue injunctive relief to stay the swearing-in of Ms. Kassner
9162	9162	scheduled for January 4, 2023, until the above-captioned matter has been fully
9163	9163	litigated. RA at 64–65.
9164	9164	The Superior Court held a preliminary hearing on December 27, 2022
9165	9165	(“December 27th Hearing”). RA at 9. During the December 27th Hearing,
9166	9166	Ms. Kassner—who had moved to intervene in the case without opposition —
9167	9167	informed the court of her intention to file a motion to dismiss. The Court set a
9168	9168	briefing schedule for the parties with regard to Mr. Mirra’s Complaint and 00142 6
9169	9169	Emergency Motion, and Ms. Kassner’s anticipated motion to dismiss. RA at 85–87
9170	9170	(Dkt. 11).
9171	9171	Ms. Kassner filed her motion to dismiss on December 27, 2022. RA at 67–79
9172	9172	(Dkt. 8, 8.1). Mr. Mirra filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December
9173	9173	28, 2022, in accordance with the Superior Court’s briefing schedule. RA at 88 –95
9174	9174	(Dkt. 12). The Secretary also filed a limited response to Ms. Kassner’s motion to
9175	9175	dismiss, in which the Secretary agreed with Mr. Mirra that the Superior Court had
9176	9176	jurisdiction. RA at 80–84 (Dkt. 10). The Secretary’s response noted that Mr. Mirra
9177	9177	has not submitted any admissible evidence with his motion, RA at 83, though the
9178	9178	evidence purportedly lacking was the protested ballots (approximately 28) that the
9179	9179	Court ordered to be delivered to the Court, RA at 85–87 (Dkt. 11), and which the
9180	9180	Municipal parties complied with and delivered the handful of protested ballots as
9181	9181	ordered. RA at 209 –210 (Dkt. 20).
9182	9182	Additionally, the Secretary and the Municipal parties opposed Mr. Mirra’s
9183	9183	Emergency Motion. RA at 80–84 (Dkt. 10), 165– 177 (Dkt. 18), 178–193 (Dkt. 17).
9184	9184	Mr. Mirra submitted an Omnibus Reply to the oppositions. RA at 194– 199 (Dkt.
9185	9185	19). In his reply, Mr. Mirra clarified his requested injunctive relief to align with what
9186	9186	the Secretary conceded was within the Superior Court’s power: to order the
9187	9187	Secretary to refrain from transmitting the Election results to the House, thereby
9188	9188	leaving the seat vacant for a short period of time consistent with the expectations 00143 7
9189	9189	under the law, and thus delaying the swearing- in. RA at 82– 84 (Dkt. 10) and RA at
9190	9190	197–198 (Dkt. 19).
9191	9191	At 3:31 PM on December 29, 2022—j
9192	9192	ust 43 minutes after the parties finished
9193	9193	submitting briefing on the operative motions in accordance with the Superior Court’s
9194	9194	expedited briefing schedule—the parties received via email the Superior Court’s 10 -
9195	9195	page “Memorandum of Decision and Order on (1) Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for
9196	9196	Expedited and Limited De Novo Review of Two Challenged Ballots, and
9197	9197	Preliminary Injunction Staying Searing-In; and (2) Third Party Defendant Kristin
9198	9198	Kassner’s Motion to Dismiss” (hereinafter “Order”).
9199	9199	1
9200	9200	RA at 201–210 (Dkt. 20). The
9201	9201	Order denied the Emergency Motion and granted Ms. Kassner’s motion to dismiss.
9202	9202	Id.
9203	9203	The Superior Court (Drechsler, J.) held that it lacked subject matter
9204	9204	jurisdiction, opining that “[b]ased on a review of the Massachusetts Constitution,
9205	9205	relevant statutes, and the unique posture of the contested election,” the House of
9206	9206	Representatives has exclusive jurisdiction over this contested election, and refused
9207	9207	to review the contested ballots that the Municipal parities had delivered as ordered.
9208	9208	RA at 205–210 (Dkt. 20). This conclusion ignored that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 56, § 59
9209	9209	(“Section 59”) confers to the Superior Court broad jurisdiction to enforce General
9210	9210
9211	9211	1
9212	9212	While the title of the decision indicates that the Emergency Motion would first be addressed and
9213	9213	then the Motion to Dismiss, the “Discussion” section of the decision reversed the order. RA at
9214	9214	205–210 (Dkt. 20).
9215	9215	00144 8
9216	9216	Laws chs. 50–56 and issue equitable awards, and that the House of Representatives’
9217	9217	jurisdiction does not vest until January 4, 2023, at the earliest. RA at 197 (Dkt. 19).
9218	9218	The conclusion also ignored additional important principles underlying
9219	9219	Massachusetts election laws and declined to credit the admissions by the Secretary
9220	9220	and Municipal parties that the Superior Court had (and still has) jurisdiction. RA at
9221	9221	197 (Dkt. 19).
9222	9222	Petitioner timely filed with the Superior Court a Notice of Appeal on
9223	9223	December 30, 2022. RA at 212– 214 (Dkt. 23).
9224	9224	APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
9225	9225	To obtain a preliminary injunction, “the moving party must show that, without
9226	9226	the requested relief, it may suffer a loss of rights that cannot be vindicated should it
9227	9227	prevail after a full hearing on the merits.” Packaging Indus. G rp. v. Cheney, 380
9228	9228	Mass. 609, 616 (1980). A court must “balance the risk of irreparable harm to the
9229	9229	plaintiff and defendant in light of each party’s chance of success on the merits at
9230	9230	trial,” Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc., v. Operation Rescue, 406 Mass.
9231	9231	701, 710 (1990) (quotation marks omitted); see also Boston Teachers Union, Loc.
9232	9232	66 v. City of Boston, 382 Mass. 553, 556 (1981). “When the balance of the equities
9233	9233	favors the moving party, the preliminary injunction may properly issue.” Id . In
9234	9234	addition, where, as here, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin governmental action, the court
9235	9235	must “determine that the requested order promotes the public interest, or, 00145 9
9236	9236	alternatively, that the equitable relief will not adversely affect the public.” Cote-
9237	9237	Whitacre v. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 446 Mass. 350, 357 (2006) (quotation marks
9238	9238	omitted).
9239	9239	ARGUMENT
9240	9240	I. MR. MIRRA HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO AN
9241	9241	INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
9242	9242
9243	9243	A. THE SUPERIOR COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS
9244	9244	MATTER
9245	9245
9246	9246	As a threshold matter, the Superior Court—and this Court— unquestionably
9247	9247	has subject matter jurisdiction to issue an injunction to preserve the status quo
9248	9248	pending an election challenge. As stated in the Secretary’s response to Ms. Kassner’s
9249	9249	motion, “as a practical matter, this Court retains jurisdiction under General Laws c.
9250	9250	56, § 59 to issue certain equitable orders pertaining to election certificates unless and
9251	9251	until the House exercises its prerogative under Part II, c. 1, § 3, art. 10 of the
9252	9252	Constitution.” RA at 82 (Dkt. 10). The Municipal parties concurred:
9253	9253	While the Court presently possesses jurisdiction over this matter, that
9254	9254	jurisdiction may be removed at any time after January 4, 2023, even after a
9255	9255	decision is rendered, leaving the Court in the position of issuing a ruling that
9256	9256	is merely advisory. Cf. Greenwood v. Registrars of Voters of City of
9257	9257	Fitchburg, 282 Mass. 74 (1933) (dismissing appeal after trial and finding
9258	9258	showing that election should be reversed, where House had assumed
9259	9259	jurisdiction over matter and it became moot, such that “any decision [by court]
9260	9260	would be nugatory or unavailing”). 00146 10
9261	9261	RA at 182–183 (Dkt. 17). In short, both the Secretary and Municipal parties concur
9262	9262	that the jurisdiction was properly laid with the Superior Court pursuant to Section
9263	9263	59 at all relevant times.
9264	9264	In response to the Emergency Motion, the Secretary also stated its view that
9265	9265	it was well within the Superior Court’s power to, in advance of January 4, 2023, and
9266	9266	in accordance with the powers afforded to it under Section 59, “temporarily order
9267	9267	the Secretary to refrain from transmitting election results to the House[,]” RA at 82–
9268	9268	83 (Dkt. 10), and that “[u]nder this scenario . . . the [] seat contested in this [E]lection
9269	9269	would remain vacant” until the House decides to act or until this Court further orders
9270	9270	the Secretary to make return of results. Id . at 83.
9271	9271	Like the Superior Court, this Court accordingly has the authority to exercise
9272	9272	its powers pursuant to Section 59 and to order the Secretary to refrain from
9273	9273	transmitting the Election results to the House, thereby leaving the seat in holdover
9274	9274	status for a short period of time consistent with the expectations under the law, and
9275	9275	thus delaying the swearing- in.
9276	9276	B. PLAINTIFF MIRRA WILL BE IRREPARABLY HARMED IF
9277	9277	THE COURT DOES NOT ISSUE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
9278	9278
9279	9279	Plaintiff—and the voters in the Second Essex District—will suffer a profound
9280	9280	loss of Constitutional rights that cannot be vindicated absent this Court’s relief.
9281	9281	Without judicial intervention and action before January 4, 2023, Mr. Mirra will be
9282	9282	irreparably harmed irrespective of the ultimate outcome of his appeal. Mr. Mirra will 00147 11
9283	9283	suffer a loss of his right to seek public office by way of a fair election free of doubt
9284	9284	and irregularities in accordance with the Commonwealth’s Declaration of Rights and
9285	9285	Constitution. See Boston Teachers Union, Loc. 66 v. City of Boston, 382 Mass. 553,
9286	9286	556 (1981) (“When the balance of the equities favors the moving party, the
9287	9287	preliminary injunction may properly issue.”).
9288	9288	C. PLAINTIFF MIRRA IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE
9289	9289	MERITS OF HIS UNDERLYING CLAIM
9290	9290
9291	9291	Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the underlying merits of this action. The
9292	9292	limited relief Mr. Mirra seeks—specifically, the review of just two challenged
9293	9293	ballots—is enough to materially change the post- Recount Election results. In his
9294	9294	Emergency Motion, Mr. Mirra asked the Superior Court to review de novo just two
9295	9295	challenged ballots: the first from Ipswich precinct 1, block 19, RA at 18 –19 (Compl.
9296	9296	¶ 57); and the second from Ipswich precinct 4, block 37, RA at 18 (Compl. ¶ 55).
9297	9297	The Superior Court declined to even open any of the ballots and ordered them
9298	9298	returned to the Municipal Defendants. RA at 209– 210 (Dkt. 20 (“Given the court's
9299	9299	above conclusions, the court never opened the ballots produced, and shall arrange
9300	9300	for their return to the Municipal Defendants”)).
9301	9301	With regard to these key ballots, the election workers called the ballots as
9302	9302	votes for Mr. Mirra, but the Ipswich Registrars wrongly and unlawfully overruled
9303	9303	the call and determined the ballots were blanks instead of votes for Mr. Mirra. RA
9304	9304	at 18–19 (Compl. ¶¶ 55, 57). The Ipswich Registrars ignored controlling 00148 12
9305	9305	Massachusetts law and disregarded Defendant Secretary’s own election recount
9306	9306	guide when it did so. Id. (Compl. ¶¶ 54–59).
9307	9307	Specifically, for example, the record below and facts will show that the
9308	9308	challenged ballot from Ipswich precinct 4, ward 37, falls squarely into the following
9309	9309	example in the Secretary’s guide as a vote to be counted for Mr. Mirra:
9310	9310
9311	9311	See RA at 44 (Compl. Ex. B at 15).
9312	9312	Given that the post- Rec
9313	9313	ount margin of victory is one (1), rectifying the
9314	9314	Ipswich Registrars’ mistakes concerning even just one of the Ipswich ballots will
9315	9315	materially change the post- Recount Election results that have already been certified.
9316	9316	Accordingly, Mr. Mirra is likely to succeed on the merits.
9317	9317	II. THIS COURT SHOU
9318	9318	LD EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY UNDER
9319	9319	MASS. R. APP. P. 6 TO ISSUE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF STAYING THE
9320	9320	SWEARING-IN OF MS. KASSNER UNTIL MR. MIRRA’S APPEAL
9321	9321	HAS BEEN HEARD AND DECIDED
9322	9322
9323	9323	After the Appeals Court’s review of this matter, it will either determine
9324	9324	Plaintiff Mirra has either won the Election, or the Election will likely result in a tie. 00149
9325	9325	Smith
9326	9326	lanes
9327	9327	Count : for Smith.
9328	9328	Example 14
9329	9329	1Check ma1·k for S1nith l¥ 11ich dips
9330	9330	sUglttly into Jones' box.
9331	9331	Legal Reference:
9332	9332	Desjourdy l'. Board of Registrars of Volers,
9333	9333	.US 1Hass. 644,266 N.E .. 2d 672 (1971). 13
9334	9334	With the post-Recount Election results placed in doubt, Massachusetts law requires
9335	9335	a new election. McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters of Brockton, 385 Mass. 833, 850
9336	9336	(1982) (“[W]henever the irregularity or illegality of [an] election is such that the
9337	9337	result of the election would be placed in doubt, then the election must be set aside,
9338	9338	and the judge must order a new election.”).
9339	9339	Notwithstanding the necessity of a new election where the results have been
9340	9340	placed in doubt, Massachusetts courts have determined that while a post-recount
9341	9341	election dispute is ongoing, governmental operations are not to be disrupted and an
9342	9342	incumbent is not to be removed until the court determines the winner. See generally
9343	9343	Alicea v. Southbridge Registrars of Voters, et al., Mass. Super. Ct. (Worcester) No.
9344	9344	1085-CV-02624. In the Alicea case, Alicea, the incumbent, allegedly lost the
9345	9345	election by one vote to Peter Durant. Id . A Worcester Superior Court judge
9346	9346	conducted a de novo review of the challenged ballots and determined that the
9347	9347	election was instead a tie. Id. Alicea remained in office as a holdover legislator. A
9348	9348	new election was ordered by the Worcester Superior Court judge, and Peter Durant,
9349	9349	the winner of the new election, was sworn into office in May 2011, after the matter
9350	9350	had been fully litigated and judicial orders completed.
9351	9351	Injunctive relief preserving the status quo will enable Mr. Mirra’s appeal to
9352	9352	be decided and his case as it relates to his request for de novo review to be allowed
9353	9353	to proceed or denied and the outcome of the election contest to be decided pursuant 00150 14
9354	9354	to the will of the voters. Cf. Connolly v. Sec’y of the Commonwealth , 404 Mass. 556,
9355	9355	568 (1989) (“If the ‘winning’ candidate prevails by less than three votes, under our
9356	9356	ruling in McCavitt, there must be a new [] election.”) (citing McCavitt, 385 Mass. at
9357	9357	848). The balance of equities therefore favors Mr. Mirra.
9358	9358	CONCLUSION
9359	9359	Mr. Mirra requests that this Court issue injunctive relief temporarily ordering
9360	9360	the Secretary to refrain from transmitting the results of this Election to the House
9361	9361	and preserving the status quo pending the outcome of Mr. Mirra’s appeal.
9362	9362
9363	9363	Respectfully submitted,
9364	9364
9365	9365	Plaintiff-Appellant Leonard Mirra
9366	9366
9367	9367	By his attorneys,
9368	9368
9369	9369	/s
9370	9370	/ Michael J. Sullivan
9371	9371	MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN MA BBO # 487210
9372	9372
9373	9373	J. CHRISTOPHER AMRHEIN, JR.
9374	9374	MA BBO # 703170
9375	9375	ASHCROFT LAW FIRM, LLC 200 STATE STREET, 7TH FLOOR
9376	9376	BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109
9377	9377	PHONE: 617-573 -9400
9378	9378	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
9379	9379	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
9380	9380
9381	9381	Dated: December 30, 2022
9382	9382	00151 15
9383	9383	CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
9384	9384
9385	9385	I hereby certify that this Supporting Memorandum of Law complies with the
9386	9386	length limits for proportionally spaced font under Mass. R. A. P. 6 because it is
9387	9387	produced in Times New Roman at size 14 and contains 2898 non-excluded words as
9388	9388	counted using the word count feature of Word for Microsoft 365.
9389	9389	/s/Mic
9390	9390	hael J. Sullivan
9391	9391	Michael J. Sullivan 00152 16
9392	9392	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9393	9393	I hereby certify that on December 30, 2022, I served this Petition, Supporting
9394	9394	Memorandum of Law, and Record Appendix as follows:
9395	9395	By e-mail on:
9396	9396
9397	9397	Counsel for Secretary Galvin Anne Sterman
9398	9398	Adam Hornstine
9399	9399	Office of the Attorney General
9400	9400	One Ashbu rton Place
9401	9401	Boston, MA 02108
9402	9402	617-963-2524
9403	9403	anne.sterman@state.ma.us
9404	9404	adam.hornstine@state.ma.us
9405	9405	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants George A. Hall, Jr.
9406	9406	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
9407	9407	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
9408	9408	Boston, MA 02109
9409	9409	617-621-6530
9410	9410	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
9411	9411	Counsel for Rowley Defendants Yael Magen
9412	9412	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
9413	9413	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
9414	9414	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
9415	9415	781-245-2284 ext.2
9416	9416	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
9417	9417	Counsel for Georgetown Lauren F. Goldberg
9418	9418	KP Law, P.C.
9419	9419	101 Arch Street, 12th Floor
9420	9420	Boston, MA 02110
9421	9421	(617) 654- 1759
9422	9422	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
9423	9423	Counsel for Kristin Kassner,
9424	9424	Proposed Intervenor
9425	9425	Gerald A. McDonough
9426	9426	Attorney-at-Law
9427	9427	13 Hollis Street
9428	9428	Cambridge, MA 02140 00153 17
9429	9429	(617) 529-1527
9430	9430	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
9431	9431
9432	9432	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
9433	9433	Michael J. Sullivan
9434	9434	00154 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
9435	9435
9436	9436	ESSEX, ss. APPEALS COURT
9437	9437	DOCKET NO. 2022-J-0740
9438	9438
9439	9439	_________________________________________
9440	9440	)
9441	9441	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA , )
9442	9442	)
9443	9443	Plaintiff-Petitioner, )
9444	9444	)
9445	9445	v. )
9446	9446	)
9447	9447	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF )
9448	9448	VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS )
9449	9449	OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN )
9450	9450	OF IPSWICH, TOWN OF ROWLEY )
9451	9451	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK )
9452	9452	FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY, WILLIAM )
9453	9453	F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as )
9454	9454	Secretary of the Commonwealth of )
9455	9455	Massachusetts, and KRISTIN KASSNER, )
9456	9456	)
9457	9457	Defendants-Respondents. )
9458	9458	_________________________________________)
9459	9459
9460	9460	DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT KRISTIN KASSNER’S OPPOSITION TO
9461	9461	PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION RELIEF
9462	9462
9463	9463	With respect to the above-captioned matter, Defendant-Respondent Kristin
9464	9464	Kassner (“Ms. Kassner”), the certified State Representative-Elect for the Second
9465	9465	Essex District, objects as follows to the request for injunctive relief sought by
9466	9466	Plaintiff-Petitioner Leonard Mirra (“Mr. Mirra”).
9467	9467	The Superior Court Correctly Concluded that It Lacked Jurisdiction.
9468	9468
9469	9469	The central point of Mr. Mirra’s request for injunctive relief is that, in his
9470	9470	Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2022-J-0740 Filed: 1/3/2023 10:56 AM00155 opinion, the Superior Court “unquestionably” had jurisdiction over the subject
9471	9471	matter of Mr. Mirra’s complaint after the certification of the election results was
9472	9472	issued by the Executive Council and the Governor, and the certification and
9473	9473	summons issued to Ms. Kassner. Mr. Mirra, however, completely ignores the
9474	9474	Supreme Judicial Court Decision, Banks v. Election Commissioners of Boston,
9475	9475	327 Mass. 509 (1951), on which the Superior Court relied for its decision. The
9476	9476	Superior Court’s reliance on the Banks Decision as set forth in its opinion is as
9477	9477	follows:
9478	9478	Kassner contends that Mirra's failure to commence this
9479	9479	litigation until after the certificate was issued to her is fatal to his
9480	9480	attempt to vest jurisdiction in the Superior Court. The court
9481	9481	agrees. While the court is unaware of any legal authority
9482	9482	identifying the precise moment in time when its jurisdiction
9483	9483	under G. L. c. 56, § 59, ends and the House of Representatives'
9484	9484	authority pursuant to Part II, c. 1, § 3, art. 10, of the Massachusetts
9485	9485	Constitution begins, the court is persuaded by Banks v. Election
9486	9486	Com'rs of Boston, 327 Mass. 509 (1951), in which the Supreme
9487	9487	Judicial Court addressed empowering language similar to the
9488	9488	language in Part II, c. l, § 3, art. 10 of the Massachusetts
9489	9489	Constitution. In Banks, the petitioners contested the results of a
9490	9490	municipal election after a recount. Under the municipal election
9491	9491	laws, the board of election of the city of Boston was granted "all
9492	9492	the powers and duties relating to the determination of the results
9493	9493	of the election" and "[t]he city counsel shall be the judge of the
9494	9494	election and qualifications of its members" (quotations omitted).
9495	9495	Banks, 327 Mass. at 512. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that
9496	9496	the court had jurisdiction to review the election results "until the
9497	9497	board determines such results and issues a certificate to whom it has
9498	9498	determined to have received the vote necessary for election." Id.
9499	9499	Following the reasoning in Banks, this court no longer has
9500	9500	jurisdiction to review the results of the election since the Governor
9501	9501	has issued a certificate to Kassner. See id. ("Up to the point that a
9502	9502	Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2022-J-0740 Filed: 1/3/2023 10:56 AM00156 certificate has been issued, at least, the matter is in control of the
9503	9503	court, which may in proper proceedings direct the board to whom to
9504	9504	issue the certificate.").
9505	9505
9506	9506	While Mirra claims that the fact that the election results have
9507	9507	been certified has no bearing on the court's jurisdiction because the
9508	9508	House of Representatives has not yet convened, the court is not
9509	9509	persuaded by this argument given the unique posture of this case
9510	9510	where the election results have been certified but not yet presented
9511	9511	to the House of Representatives. The cases cited by Mirra in support
9512	9512	of his argument that the court retains jurisdiction are unpersuasive,
9513	9513	as they all involved elections to offices other than State
9514	9514	Representative, where the courts were not constrained by the
9515	9515	constitutional provision at issue here and in Wheatley. See Delahunt
9516	9516	v. Johnston, 423 Mass. 731 (1996) (primary for nomination of
9517	9517	Democratic Party for office of United States Representative for
9518	9518	Tenth Congressional District); Colten v. Haverhill, 409 Mass. 55
9519	9519	(1991) (city council election); Connolly v. Secretary of the
9520	9520	Commonwealth, 404 Mass. 556 (1989) (Democratic primary
9521	9521	election and general election for office of Governor's Councillor for
9522	9522	Third District);
9523	9523	7
9524	9524	McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters of Brockton, 385
9525	9525	Mass. 333 (1982) (mayoral election). Nor is the case of Alicea v.
9526	9526	Southbridge Registrars of Voters, Mass. Super Ct. No.
9527	9527	1085CV02624, helpful to Mirra's cause. In that case, the Superior
9528	9528	Court held a trial on the merits in a challenge to an election for the
9529	9529	Office of State Representative for the Sixth Worcester District,
9530	9530	but the plaintiff filed suit on November 29, 2010, in advance of
9531	9531	the certification, and his opponent filed a counterclaim. The
9532	9532	parties, thus, accepted jurisdiction and never litigated the issue of
9533	9533	jurisdiction. As a result, Alicea has no bearing on this court's
9534	9534	analysis.
9535	9535
9536	9536
9537	9537
9538	9538	7
9539	9539
9540	9540	Connolly is further distinguishable because the preliminary
9541	9541	injunction in that case was entered prior to the certification of the
9542	9542	election results by the Governor and the Executive Council, and
9543	9543	restrained the Secretary from transmitting the results to the Governor
9544	9544	and the Executive Council for certification. 404 Mass. at 559.
9545	9545	Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2022-J-0740 Filed: 1/3/2023 10:56 AM00157
9546	9546
9547	9547	1
9548	9548
9549	9549	The Superior Court’s extended discussion of its rationale for reliance on the
9550	9550	Banks Decision belies Mr. Mirra’s contention that the Court unquestionably had
9551	9551	jurisdiction over the subject matter of Mr. Mirra’s complaint after the certification
9552	9552	of the election.
9553	9553	1
9554	9554
9555	9555	This Court Cannot Grant the Relief that Mr. Mirra Seeks.
9556	9556	The relief that Mr. Mirra seeks – an order from this Court ordering the
9557	9557	Secretary of State to refrain from transmitting the result of the election to the
9558	9558	House of Representatives is both too little and too late. Mr. Mirra’s real goal is to
9559	9559	prevent the swearing in of Ms. Kassner tomorrow, the first Wednesday in January
9560	9560	after the election, should the House of Representatives choose to swear her in at
9561	9561	that time. Ms. Kassner, taking no position in this forum as to whether or not she
9562	9562	should be sworn in at that time, opposes the authority of this Court to make that
9563	9563	determination, as that is a determination that should be left to the House itself.
9564	9564	Since its inception, the Massachusetts Constitution has expressly provided
9565	9565	that “[t]he house of representatives shall be the judge of the returns, elections, and
9566	9566	qualifications of its own members.” G.L. Const. Pt. 2, C. 1, § 3, Art. 10. The
9567	9567	Supreme Judicial Court has address this question on a number of occasions, but the
9568	9568	Court’s statement in Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516 (1916), is particularly
9569	9569
9570	9570	1
9571	9571	Neither Mr. Mirra nor any of the other Defendants made any reference to the Banks Decision in any of
9572	9572	their pleadings.
9573	9573	Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2022-J-0740 Filed: 1/3/2023 10:56 AM00158
9574	9574
9575	9575	2
9576	9576
9577	9577	compelling:
9578	9578	The power to pass upon the election and qualification of its own
9579	9579	members thus is vested exclusively in each branch of the General Court.
9580	9580	No other department of the government has any authority under
9581	9581	the Constitution to adjudicate upon that subject. The grant of
9582	9582	power is comprehensive, full and complete. It is necessarily
9583	9583	exclusive, for the Constitution contains no words permitting either
9584	9584	branch of the Legislature to delegate or share that power. It must
9585	9585	remain where the sovereign authority of the state has placed it.
9586	9586	General phrases elsewhere in the Constitution, which in the absence of
9587	9587	an explicit imposition of power and duty would permit the enactment
9588	9588	of laws to govern the subject, cannot narrow or impair the positive
9589	9589	declaration of the people's will that this power is vested solely in the
9590	9590	Senate and House respectively. It is a prerogative belonging to each
9591	9591	House, which each alone can exercise. It is not susceptible of being
9592	9592	deputed.
9593	9593
9594	9594	Id. at 517 (emphasis added).
9595	9595	This Court, therefore, has no authority to tell the House of Representatives
9596	9596	how to conduct its business, and whom to swear in or not to swear in on January
9597	9597	4th.
9598	9598	Mr. Mirra Has No Likelihood of Success on the Merits.
9599	9599	Although Mr. Mirra’s complaint is replete with examples of what he
9600	9600	contends are issues that should overturn the election, in his motion before the
9601	9601	Superior Court for a preliminary election, he focused on just two of the protested
9602	9602	ballots from Ipswich. And now, Mr. Mirra has further diluted his objections by
9603	9603	focusing on just one ballot which, he contends, violates the Secretary of State’s
9604	9604	guidelines for recounts. Mr. Mirra, however, has provided no affidavit as to what
9605	9605	Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2022-J-0740 Filed: 1/3/2023 10:56 AM00159
9606	9606
9607	9607	3
9608	9608
9609	9609	that ballot looks like, and the example copied from that guide is not anything like
9610	9610	the ballot itself -- the actual ballots instruct voters to fill in ovals, and the marks on
9611	9611	this disputed ballot are not similar to the mark on Mr. Mirra’s example. This is too
9612	9612	weak of a record to deny Ms. Kassner the right to be seated as the State
9613	9613	Representative for the Second Essex District and to derail the choice of the voters
9614	9614	of the District who chose her as their Representative.
9615	9615	Conclusion
9616	9616	FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, Defendant-Respondent Kristin
9617	9617	Kassner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reject Mr. Mirra’s request
9618	9618	for injunctive relief.
9619	9619	Respectfully submitted,
9620	9620
9621	9621	KRISTIN E. KASSNER,
9622	9622	By her attorney,
9623	9623
9624	9624	Gerald A. McDonough
9625	9625	__________________________________
9626	9626	Gerald A. McDonough, Esq.
9627	9627	BBO #559802
9628	9628	13 Hollis Street
9629	9629	Cambridge, MA 02140
9630	9630	(617) 529-1527
9631	9631	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
9632	9632
9633	9633	Dated: January 3, 2023
9634	9634
9635	9635
9636	9636
9637	9637
9638	9638
9639	9639	Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2022-J-0740 Filed: 1/3/2023 10:56 AM00160
9640	9640
9641	9641	4
9642	9642
9643	9643	CERTIFICATE OF COMPLAINCE
9644	9644
9645	9645	I hereby certify that this pleading complies with the length limits for
9646	9646	proportionately spaced font size under Mass. R. A. P. 6 because it is produced in
9647	9647	Times New Roman size 14 and contains 1,760 words as counted using the word
9648	9648	count feature of Word for Microsoft Office 365.
9649	9649
9650	9650	Gerald A. McDonough
9651	9651	Gerald A. McDonough
9652	9652
9653	9653
9654	9654
9655	9655
9656	9656
9657	9657
9658	9658	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9659	9659
9660	9660	I, Gerald A McDonough, certify that I have served the attached by causing copies
9661	9661	to be delivered electronically to:
9662	9662
9663	9663	Counsel for Plaintiff Leonard Mirra:
9664	9664	Michael J. Sullivan, Esq.
9665	9665	J. Christopher Amrhein, Esq.
9666	9666	Ashcroft Law Firm
9667	9667	200 State Street, 7h Floor
9668	9668	Boston, MA 02109
9669	9669	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
9670	9670	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
9671	9671
9672	9672	Counsel for Defendant William Galvin:
9673	9673	Anne Sterman, Esq.
9674	9674	Adam Hornstine, Esq.
9675	9675	Office of the Attorney General
9676	9676	One Ashburton Place
9677	9677	Boston, MA 02108
9678	9678	Anne.Sterman@mass.gov
9679	9679	Adam.Hornstine@mass.gov
9680	9680	Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2022-J-0740 Filed: 1/3/2023 10:56 AM00161
9681	9681
9682	9682	5
9683	9683
9684	9684
9685	9685	Counsel for Georgetown Defendants:
9686	9686	Lauren Goldberg, Esq.
9687	9687	Deval C. Braun, Esq.
9688	9688	KP Law, PC
9689	9689	101 Arch Street
9690	9690	Boston, MA 02110
9691	9691	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
9692	9692	DBraun@k-plaw.com
9693	9693
9694	9694	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants:
9695	9695	George A. Hall, Jr., Esq.
9696	9696	Christina A. Marshall, Esq.
9697	9697	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
9698	9698	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
9699	9699	Boston, MA 02109
9700	9700	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
9701	9701	cmarshall@andersonkreiger.com
9702	9702
9703	9703	Counsel for Rowley Defendants:
9704	9704	Yael Magen, Esq.
9705	9705	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
9706	9706	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
9707	9707	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
9708	9708	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
9709	9709
9710	9710
9711	9711	Gerald A. McDonough
9712	9712	Gerald A. McDonough
9713	9713
9714	9714
9715	9715	Dated: January 3, 2023
9716	9716
9717	9717
9718	9718
9719	9719
9720	9720	Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2022-J-0740 Filed: 1/3/2023 10:56 AM00162
9721	9721	1
9722	9722	COMMONWEALTH OF
9723	9723	MASSACHUSETTS
9724	9724
9725	9725	APPEALS COURT
9726	9726
9727	9727
9728	9728	Essex, ss.
9729	9729	Docket No. 2022-J-0740
9730	9730	Superior Court Docket No. 2277-CV-01243
9731	9731	_________________________________________
9732	9732
9733	9733	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
9734	9734	Plaintiff-Petitioner,
9735	9735	v.
9736	9736
9737	9737	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH
9738	9738	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH,
9739	9739	TOWN OF ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK FOR THE
9740	9740	TOWN OF ROWLEY, and WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as
9741	9741	Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
9742	9742	Defendants-Respondents,
9743	9743	and
9744	9744	KRISTIN KASSNER,
9745	9745	Intervenor-Respondent.
9746	9746	_________________________________________
9747	9747
9748	9748	PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER LEONARD MIRRA’S SUPPLEMENTAL
9749	9749	SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
9750	9750	PURSUANT TO MASS. R. APP. P. 6
9751	9751	_________________________________________
9752	9752
9753	9753
9754	9754	Counsel for Plaintiff Leonard Mirra
9755	9755	MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
9756	9756	MA BBO # 487210
9757	9757	J. CHRISTOPHER AMRHEIN, JR.
9758	9758	MA BBO # 703170
9759	9759	ASHCROFT LAW FIRM, LLC
9760	9760	200 STATE STREET, 7TH FLOOR
9761	9761	BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109
9762	9762	PHONE: 617-573-9400
9763	9763	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
9764	9764	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com 0016P
9765	9765	2
9766	9766	Leonard Mirra, Petitioner in the above-captioned action (hereafter “Mr.
9767	9767	Mirra” or “Petitioner”), respectfully submits this supplement in support of his
9768	9768	pending request for an injunction pending appeal pursuant to Rule 6 of the
9769	9769	Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure filed December 30, 2022 (“Rule 6
9770	9770	Request”).
9771	9771	This morning, January 3, 2023, undersigned counsel received an email from
9772	9772	the Secretary of State’s Elections Division stating that Secretary’s office “intends to
9773	9773	transmit all certified election results to the House Clerk on January 4, 2023 as
9774	9774	required by the Constitution and section 117 of chapter 54 of the General Laws
9775	9775	unless a court order issues enjoining us from doing so.” A true and accurate copy of
9776	9776	said email is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
9777	9777	The Secretary’s statement of position supports Petitioner’s argument in his
9778	9778	Rule 6 Request (at pages 10–11) that, absent this Court’s immediate intervention and
9779	9779	entry of an injunction pending appeal, Petitioner—and the voters in the Second
9780	9780	Essex District—will suffer irreparable harm and this Court may be unduly divested
9781	9781	of subject matter and appellate jurisdiction over this action.
9782	9782
9783	9783	Respectfully submitted,
9784	9784
9785	9785	Petitioner-Plaintiff Leonard Mirra
9786	9786
9787	9787	By his attorneys,
9788	9788	00164
9789	9789	3
9790	9790	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
9791	9791	MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
9792	9792	MA BBO # 487210
9793	9793	J. CHRISTOPHER AMRHEIN, JR.
9794	9794	MA BBO # 703170
9795	9795	ASHCROFT LAW FIRM, LLC
9796	9796	200 STATE STREET, 7TH FLOOR
9797	9797	BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109
9798	9798	PHONE: 617-573-9400
9799	9799	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
9800	9800	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
9801	9801
9802	9802	Dated: January 3, 2023 0016R
9803	9803	4
9804	9804	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9805	9805
9806	9806	I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the below via
9807	9807	electronic mail on January 3, 2023:
9808	9808	Counsel for Secretary Galvin
9809	9809	Anne Sterman
9810	9810	Adam Hornstine
9811	9811	Office of the Attorney General
9812	9812	One Ashburton Place
9813	9813	Boston, MA 02108
9814	9814	617-963-2524
9815	9815	anne.sterman@state.ma.us
9816	9816	adam.hornstine@state.ma.us
9817	9817
9818	9818	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants
9819	9819	George A. Hall, Jr. Anderson & Kreiger LLP 50 Milk Street, 21st Floor Boston, MA 02109 617-621-6530 ghall@andersonkreiger.com
9820	9820
9821	9821	Counsel for Rowley Defendants
9822	9822	Yael Magen Thomas A. Mullen, P.C. 40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12 Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940 781-245-2284 ext.2 yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
9823	9823
9824	9824	Counsel for Georgetown
9825	9825	Lauren F. Goldberg KP Law, P.C. 101 Arch Street, 12th Floor Boston, MA 02110 (617) 654-1759 lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
9826	9826
9827	9827	Counsel for Kristin Kassner
9828	9828	Gerald A. McDonough Attorney-at-Law 13 Hollis Street Cambridge, MA 02140 (617) 529-1527 gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
9829	9829
9830	9830	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
9831	9831	Michael J. Sullivan 0016S EXHIBIT A 00167 Transmittal of Election Results
9832	9832	Tassinari, Michelle (SEC) <Michelle.Tassinari@sec.state.ma.us>
9833	9833	Tue 1/3/2023 10:15 AM
9834	9834	To:kristin@kristinkassner.org <kristin@kristinkassner.org>;lenny.mirra@gmail.com <lenny.mirra@gmail.com>
9835	9835	Cc:Sullivan, Mike <msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com>;Amrhein, Christopher <camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com>;Gerald
9836	9836	McDonough <gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com>; james.kennedy@mahouse.gov <james.kennedy@mahouse.gov>;Hornstine,
9837	9837	Adam (AGO) <adam.hornstine@state.ma.us>;Sterman, Anne (AGO) <anne.sterman@state.ma.us>;Rosenberry, John (SEC)
9838	9838	<john.rosenberry@sec.state.ma.us>
9839	9839	Good Morning-
9840	9840
9841	9841	We are writing to confirm that this Office intends to transmit all certified election results to the House Clerk on January 4, 2023
9842	9842	as required by the Constitution and section 117 of chapter 54 of the General Laws unless a court order issues enjoining us
9843	9843	from doing so.
9844	9844
9845	9845	Michelle K. Tassinari
9846	9846	Director and Legal Counsel
9847	9847	Elections Division
9848	9848	Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth
9849	9849	One Ashburton Place, Room 1705 Boston, MA 02108 617-727-2828
9850	9850	00168
9851	9851
9852	9852	1
9853	9853
9854	9854	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
9855	9855
9856	9856	ESSEX, ss. APPEALS COURT
9857	9857	DOCKET NO. 2022-J-0740
9858	9858
9859	9859	_________________________________________
9860	9860	)
9861	9861	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA , )
9862	9862	)
9863	9863	Plaintiff-Petitioner, )
9864	9864	)
9865	9865	v. )
9866	9866	)
9867	9867	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF )
9868	9868	VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS )
9869	9869	OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN )
9870	9870	OF IPSWICH, TOWN OF ROWLEY )
9871	9871	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK )
9872	9872	FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY, WILLIAM )
9873	9873	F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as )
9874	9874	Secretary of the Commonwealth of )
9875	9875	Massachusetts, and KRISTIN KASSNER, )
9876	9876	)
9877	9877	Defendants-Respondents. )
9878	9878	__________________________________________)
9879	9879
9880	9880	DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT KRISTIN KASSNER’S REPLY TO
9881	9881	PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER’S “STATUS REPORT”
9882	9882
9883	9883	Defendant-Respondent Kristin Kassner (“Ms. Kassner”) responds briefly as follows to
9884	9884	the so-called “Status Report just filed by Plaintiff-Petitioner Leonard Mirra (“Mr. Mirra”).
9885	9885	Although Mr. Mirra is a veteran member of the House of Representatives, his filings display a
9886	9886	deep disrespect of that body, a coordinate branch of government to this Court. The framers of the
9887	9887	Massachusetts Constitution expressly provided that “[t]he house of representatives shall be the
9888	9888	judge of the returns, elections, and qualifications of its own members,” and Mr. Mirra seeks to
9889	9889	thwart that constitutional authority. See G.L. Const. Pt. 2, C. 1, § 3, Art. 10.
9890	9890	The challenge to this Court at this time is whether the Court will decide this matter on its
9891	9891	own, in the limited time that is available for review of these issues, without a full briefing of the
9892	9892	Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2022-J-0740 Filed: 1/3/2023 3:43 PM00169
9893	9893
9894	9894	2
9895	9895
9896	9896	issue by all the interested parties, or whether the Court will allow the House of Representatives,
9897	9897	to whom the framers of the Massachusetts Constitution delegated these issues, to be the decision-
9898	9898	maker. This may well be a case where justice is best served by judicial restraint. See Zayre
9899	9899	Corporation v. Attorney General, 372 Mass. 423, 433 (1977) (“principle of judicial restraint
9900	9900	includes recognition of the inability and undesirability of the judiciary substituting its notions of
9901	9901	correct policy for that of a popularly elected Legislature”).
9902	9902	Respectfully submitted,
9903	9903
9904	9904	KRISTIN E. KASSNER,
9905	9905	By her attorney,
9906	9906
9907	9907	Gerald A. McDonough
9908	9908	__________________________________
9909	9909	Gerald A. McDonough, Esq.
9910	9910	BBO #559802
9911	9911	13 Hollis Street
9912	9912	Cambridge, MA 02140
9913	9913	(617) 529-1527
9914	9914	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
9915	9915
9916	9916	Dated: January 3, 2023
9917	9917
9918	9918
9919	9919
9920	9920
9921	9921
9922	9922	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9923	9923
9924	9924	I, Gerald A McDonough, certify that I have served the attached by causing copies to be delivered
9925	9925	electronically to:
9926	9926
9927	9927	Counsel for Plaintiff Leonard Mirra:
9928	9928	Michael J. Sullivan, Esq.
9929	9929	J. Christopher Amrhein, Esq.
9930	9930	Ashcroft Law Firm
9931	9931	200 State Street, 7h Floor
9932	9932	Boston, MA 02109
9933	9933	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
9934	9934	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
9935	9935
9936	9936	Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2022-J-0740 Filed: 1/3/2023 3:43 PM00170
9937	9937
9938	9938	3
9939	9939
9940	9940	Counsel for Defendant William Galvin:
9941	9941	Anne Sterman, Esq.
9942	9942	Adam Hornstine, Esq.
9943	9943	Office of the Attorney General
9944	9944	One Ashburton Place
9945	9945	Boston, MA 02108
9946	9946	Anne.Sterman@mass.gov
9947	9947	Adam.Hornstine@mass.gov
9948	9948
9949	9949	Counsel for Georgetown Defendants:
9950	9950	Lauren Goldberg, Esq.
9951	9951	Deval C. Braun, Esq.
9952	9952	KP Law, PC
9953	9953	101 Arch Street
9954	9954	Boston, MA 02110
9955	9955	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
9956	9956	DBraun@k-plaw.com
9957	9957
9958	9958	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants:
9959	9959	George A. Hall, Jr., Esq.
9960	9960	Christina A. Marshall, Esq.
9961	9961	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
9962	9962	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
9963	9963	Boston, MA 02109
9964	9964	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
9965	9965	cmarshall@andersonkreiger.com
9966	9966
9967	9967	Counsel for Rowley Defendants:
9968	9968	Yael Magen, Esq.
9969	9969	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
9970	9970	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
9971	9971	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
9972	9972	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
9973	9973
9974	9974
9975	9975	Gerald A. McDonough
9976	9976	Gerald A. McDonough
9977	9977
9978	9978
9979	9979	Dated: January 3, 2023
9980	9980
9981	9981
9982	9982
9983	9983	Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2022-J-0740 Filed: 1/3/2023 3:43 PM00171 00172 -COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
9984	9984	APPEALS COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
9985	9985	January 4, 2023
9986	9986	RE: No. 2022-J-0740
9987	9987	Lower
9988	9988	Ct. No.: 2277-CV-01243
9989	9989	LEONARD MIRRA
9990	9990	vs.
9991	9991	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN RIGISTRARS OF VOTERS & others
9992	9992	NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRY
9993	9993	Please take note that on January 3, 2023, the following entry was made on the docket of the above-referenced case:
9994	9994	ORDER: The plaintiff has rnoved pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 6(a) for an injunction pending appeal. I have reviewed the
9995	9995	papers filed, including
9996	9996	the December 14, 2022 certification of the election result~ by Governor Charles D. Baker and the
9997	9997	December 28, 2022 response by Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin to the plaintiff's motion. I have also
9998	9998	reviewed the December 29, 2022
9999	9999	order of the Superior Court (Drechsler, J.), which denied the plaintiff's emergency
10000	10000	motion
10001	10001	for expedited and limited de nova review of two challenged ballots and preliminary injunction staying swearing
10002	10002	in, and allowed
10003	10003	the motion to dismiss of third-party defendant Kristin Kassner. In that order, the Superior Court judge
10004	10004	concluded
10005	10005	that the plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on appeal. I discern no abuse of discretion in the
10006	10006	judge's rulings. See Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 615 (1980); Edwin R. Sage Co. v. Foley, 12
10007	10007	Mass. App.
10008	10008	Ct. 20, 2-5 (1981). See also L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014). Accordingly, the motion i~
10009	10009	denied. (Grant, J.). Notice/attest/Drechsler, J.
10010	10010	REGISTRATION FOR ELECTRONIC FILING. Every attorney with an appeal pending in the Appeals Court must have an
10011	10011	account with eFileMA.com. Registration with eFileMA.com constitutes consent to receive electronic notification from·
10012	10012	the Appeals Court and e-service of documents. Self-represented litigants are encouraged, but not required, to register
10013	10013	for electronic filing.
10014	10014	ELECTRONIC-FILING. Attorneys must e-file all non-impounded documents. Impounded documents and submissions by
10015	10015	self-represented litigants may
10016	10016	bee-filed. No paper original or copy of any e-filed document is required. Additional
10017	10017	information
10018	10018	is located on our Electronic Filing page: http://www.mass.gov/courts/court-info/appealscourt/efiling
10019	10019	appeals-faq-gen. html
10020	10020	FILING OF CONFIDENTIAL OR IMPOUNDED INFORMATION. Any document containing confidential or impounded
10021	10021	material must
10022	10022	be filed in compliance with Mass. R. App. P. 16(d), 16(m), 18(a)(1)(A)(iv), 18(d), and 21.
10023	10023	Very
10024	10024	truly yours,
10025	10025	The Clerk's Office
10026	10026	1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
10027	10027	SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
10028	10028
10029	10029
10030	10030	Essex, ss.
10031	10031	SJC -
10032	10032	Docket No. 20 23-J-0740
10033	10033	Superior Court Docket No. 2277-CV-01243
10034	10034	_________________________________________
10035	10035
10036	10036	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
10037	10037	Plaintiff-Petitioner,
10038	10038	v.
10039	10039
10040	10040	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH
10041	10041	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH,
10042	10042	TOWN OF ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK FOR THE
10043	10043	TOWN OF ROWLEY, and WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as
10044	10044	Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
10045	10045	Defendants-Respondents,
10046	10046	and
10047	10047	KRISTIN KASSNER,
10048	10048	Intervenor-Respondent.
10049	10049	_________________________________________
10050	10050
10051	10051	PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER LEONARD MIRRA ’S EMERGENCY
10052	10052	PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO
10053	10053	MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 211 § 3
10054	10054	_________________________________________
10055	10055
10056	10056
10057	10057	Counsel for Plaintiff-Petitioner Leonard
10058	10058	Mirra
10059	10059	MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
10060	10060	MA BBO # 487210
10061	10061	J. CHRISTOPHER AMRHEIN, JR.
10062	10062	MA BBO # 703170
10063	10063	ASHCROFT LAW FIRM, LLC
10064	10064	200 STATE STREET, 7TH FLOOR
10065	10065	BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 021 09
10066	10066	PHONE: 617-573 -9400
10067	10067	msullivan @ashcroftlawfirm.com
10068	10068	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com 00173 2
10069	10069
10070	10070	Now comes Leonard Mirra, Petitioner in the above-captioned action
10071	10071	(hereafter “Mr. Mirra” or “Petitioner”), and respectfully petitions this Court to
10072	10072	exercise its superintendence authority pursuant to Mass. G. L. Ch . 211, § 3 and
10073	10073	grant expedited review of the January 3, 2023 denial by a single justice from the
10074	10074	Appeals Court (Grant, J.) of Petitioner’s request for an injunction pending appeal
10075	10075	pursuant to Rule 6 of the Massachuse tts Rules of Appellate Procedure (“Rule 6
10076	10076	Request”). A true and accurate copy of the justice’s order (“Denia l Order”) is
10077	10077	attached hereto as Exhibit A .
10078	10078	The single justice denied Petitioner’s request for a stay in this election case
10079	10079	based exclusively on Petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits by applying
10080	10080	an incorrect abuse-of-discretion standard. See Denial Order at 1 (observing that
10081	10081	“the Superior Court judge concluded that the plaintiff has not shown a likelihood
10082	10082	of success on appeal” and finding “no abuse of discretion in the judge’ s rulings”).
10083	10083	The Denial Order demonstrates that the Superior Court exercised no discretion in
10084	10084	its ruling on this issue, however. Instead, the Superior Court simply denied
10085	10085	Petitioner’s motion because it (incorrectly) found a lack of subject matter
10086	10086	jurisdiction—a quintessential question of law an appellate court reviews de novo—
10087	10087	and then concluded that it could not grant any relief, and need not consider the
10088	10088	merits of Pet itioner’s underlying claim. See Superior Court Order dated December
10089	10089	29, 2022 (“ Dismissal Order”) at 5–6, 9 (finding a lack of jurisdiction based upon a 00174 3
10090	10090	novel q uestion of constitutional law regarding “the precise moment in time” when
10091	10091	a trial court’s jurisdiction ends and the House of Representatives’ jurisdiction
10092	10092	begins and declining to consider the likelihood of success on the merits beca use
10093	10093	“[a]s the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to hear this dispute, the court
10094	10094	need not reach Mirra’s substantive arguments regarding the protested ballots”). A
10095	10095	true and accurate copy of the Superior Court’s Dismissal Or der is attached hereto
10096	10096	as Exhibit B.
10097	10097	This Court’s emergency intervention in this case at this juncture is needed to
10098	10098	safeguard the rights of the voters in the Commonwealth and to protect the
10099	10099	jurisdiction of Massachusetts state courts to hear election disputes. In light of the
10100	10100	substantial public interests at stake in this matter having constitutional
10101	10101	ramifications and the absence of other, conventional remedies, this matter qualifies
10102	10102	for the unique exercise of authority granted to this Court under G.L. Ch. 211 § 3.
10103	10103	REQUESTED RELIEF
10104	10104	Petitioner respectfully petitions this Court to order the following relief:
10105	10105	1. Issue an order reversing the denial of Petitioner’s Rule 6 Request;
10106	10106	2. Enter a preliminary injunction ordering the Secretary of State to refrain from
10107	10107	transmitting election results solely with resp ect to the Second Essex District
10108	10108	Representative El ection pending the outcome of Petitioner ’s appeal of the Superior
10109	10109	Court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s Complaint on December 29, 2022; 00175 4
10110	10110	3. Grant such other relief as is just and appropriate; and
10111	10111	4. Hold a hearing on this emergency request.
10112	10112	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND GROUNDS FOR PETITION
10113	10113	1
10114	10114
10115	10115	This is an action relating to the November 8, 2022, Second Essex State
10116	10116	Representative election (“Election”), and the ballots challenged and preserved at
10117	10117	the December 2022 district-wide Election recount (“Recount”). Petitioner was
10118	10118	originally determined to have won the Ele ction by ten (10) votes. Instead, the
10119	10119	Recount reported that Defendant-Respondent Kristin Kassner (“Ms. Kassner”) won
10120	10120	the Election over Mr. Mirra by just one (1) vote.
10121	10121	In an order dated December 29, 2022, Superior Court Judge Drechsler
10122	10122	dismissed Petitio ner’s Complaint challenging this new election result for lack of
10123	10123	jurisdiction. The Court entered judgment the following day, December 30, 2022.
10124	10124	The Superior Court’s ruling was based on the incorrect view that the House of
10125	10125	Representatives had exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute at this juncture. The
10126	10126	Superior Court premised its ruling on a novel question of law regarding “the
10127	10127	precise moment in time” when a trial court’s jurisdiction ends and the House of
10128	10128	Representatives’ jurisdiction begins. See Exhibit C, Record Appendix (“RA”) at
10129	10129	206 (Dkt. 20). The Superior Court answered this important constitutional question
10130	10130
10131	10131	1
10132	10132	The procedural background and facts are set forth in Petitioner’s Memorandum in
10133	10133	Support of his Rule 6 Request, at tached with the Petition and Record Appendix
10134	10134	hereto as Exhibit C, but will be briefly summarized here. 00176 5
10135	10135	incorrectly and improperly restricted the scope of state courts’ jurisdiction over
10136	10136	such matters.
10137	10137	Petitioner immediately filed a notice of appeal of the ju dgment in the
10138	10138	Superior Court. See Exhibit C, RA at 212–215 (Dkts. 23 and 24). Petitioner also
10139	10139	filed his Rule 6 Request with a single justice of the Appeals Court on December
10140	10140	30, 2022. See id. (Rule 6 Petition and Supporting Memorandum).
10141	10141	The morning of Ja
10142	10142	nuary 3, 2023, undersigned counsel re ceived an email
10143	10143	from the Secretary of State’s Elections Division (“Secretary”) indicating,
10144	10144	notwithstanding the Secretary’s agreement that the Superior Court had jurisdiction
10145	10145	over the action , the Secretary’s office “intends to transmit all certified election
10146	10146	results to the House Clerk on January 4, 2023 as required by the Constitution and
10147	10147	section 117 of chapter 54 of the General Laws unless a court order issues enjoining
10148	10148	us from doing so.” A true and accurate copy of said email was submitted as a
10149	10149	supplemental status update to Petitioner’s Rule 6 Request and is attached hereto as
10150	10150	Exhibit D.
10151	10151	Late in the afternoon of January 3, 2023, a single justice of the Appeals
10152	10152	Court issued the Denial Order declining Petitioner’s Rule 6 Request. The Denial
10153	10153	Order applied the wrong standard of review in denying the Rule 6 Request. The
10154	10154	single justice erroneously believed that the Superior Court substantively co nsidered
10155	10155	Petitioner’s likelihood of success on the merits. It did not. Instead, the Super ior 00177 6
10156	10156	Court concluded that because it lacked jurisdiction, it could not enter any relief and
10157	10157	need not consider whether Petitioner’s claim had merit.
10158	10158	Given the Secretary’s intention to trans mit Election results to the House
10159	10159	tomorrow, January 4, 2023, the misapplication of the standard of review in the
10160	10160	Denial Order may have the effect of mooting Petitioner’s pending appeal prior to
10161	10161	any judicial review of the two contested ballots at issue in his now-dismisse d
10162	10162	Complaint and prior to any appell ate review of said dismissal.
10163	10163	Accordingly, the single justice’s denial of Petitioner’s Rule 6 Request itself
10164	10164	constitutes an error of law and an abuse of discretion and “clear error of judgment
10165	10165	in weighing the r elevant factors, such that the decision falls outside the range of
10166	10166	reasonable alternatives.” Matter of an Impounded Case, No. SJC -13127, 2022 WL
10167	10167	17838489, at *4 (Mass. Dec. 22, 2022) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
10168	10168	Further, even under a typical preliminary injunction analysis, Petitioner has
10169	10169	demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits that ju dicial review will
10170	10170	determine that one or both of the co ntested ballots will be deemed cast as
10171	10171	originally determined or are inconclusive—in either case resulting in
10172	10172	circumstances that require the suspension of any swearing- in of Ms. Kassner.
10173	10173	Without this Court’s intervention, Petitioner—and each citizen who cast of
10174	10174	vote for Petitioner in the Election—will suffer irreparable harm by being deprived
10175	10175	of any judicial review of two disputed ballots, the outcome of which will either 00178 7
10176	10176	reverse the election or will send the process back to voters to be decided in anothe r
10177	10177	election in accordance with Massachusetts’ election statutes.
10178	10178	CONCLUSION
10179	10179	Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully submits that, in light of the substantial
10180	10180	public interests at stake in this matter having constitutional ramifications and the
10181	10181	absence of other, conventional remedies, this matter qualifies for the unique
10182	10182	exercise of authority granted to this Court under G.L. Ch. 211 § 3 and requests that
10183	10183	this Court reverse the single justice’s Denial Order and grant on an expedited basis
10184	10184	Petitioner’s pending request for an injunction pending appeal pursuant to Mass. R.
10185	10185	App. P. 6 and the aforementioned statute.
10186	10186
10187	10187	Respectfully submitted,
10188	10188
10189	10189	Plaintiff-Petitioner Leonard Mirra
10190	10190
10191	10191	By his attorneys,
10192	10192
10193	10193	/s
10194	10194	/ Michael J. Sullivan
10195	10195	MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
10196	10196	MA BBO # 487210
10197	10197
10198	10198	J. CHRIST OPHER AMRHEIN, JR.
10199	10199	MA BBO # 703170
10200	10200	ASHCROFT LAW FIRM, LLC
10201	10201	200 STATE STREET, 7TH FLOOR
10202	10202	BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109
10203	10203	PHONE: 6 17-573-9400
10204	10204	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
10205	10205	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
10206	10206	Dated: January 3, 2023 00179 8
10207	10207
10208	10208	CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC
10209	10209	E
10210	10210	I hereby certify that on January 3, 2023, I served this Petition as follows:
10211	10211	By e-mail on:
10212	10212
10213	10213	Counsel for Secretary Galvin Anne Sterman
10214	10214	Adam Hornstine
10215	10215	Office of the Attorney General
10216	10216	One Ashburton Place
10217	10217	Boston, MA 02108
10218	10218	617-963-2524
10219	10219	anne.sterman@state.ma.us
10220	10220	adam.hornstine@state.ma.us
10221	10221	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants George A. Hall, Jr.
10222	10222	Anderson & Kreiger LLP 50 Milk Street, 21st Floor Boston, MA 02109 617-621-6530
10223	10223	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
10224	10224	Counsel for Rowley Defendants Yael Magen
10225	10225	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C. 40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
10226	10226	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
10227	10227	781-245-2284 ext.2
10228	10228	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
10229	10229	Counsel for Georgetown Lauren F. Goldberg
10230	10230	KP Law, P.C.
10231	10231	101 Arch Street, 12th Floor Boston, MA 02110 (617) 654-1759
10232	10232	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
10233	10233	Counsel for Kristin Kassner, Proposed
10234	10234	Intervenor
10235	10235	Gerald A. McDonough
10236	10236	Attorney-at-Law
10237	10237	13 Hollis Street Cambridge, MA 02140 (617) 529-1527
10238	10238	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
10239	10239
10240	10240	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
10241	10241	Michael J. Sullivan 00180
10242	10242
10243	10243	1
10244	10244
10245	10245	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
10246	10246
10247	10247	ESSEX, ss. SUPREME JUDICAL COURT
10248	10248	DOCKET NO. 2022
10249	10249
10250	10250	_________________________________________
10251	10251	)
10252	10252	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA , )
10253	10253	)
10254	10254	Plaintiff-Petitioner, )
10255	10255	)
10256	10256	v. )
10257	10257	)
10258	10258	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN REGISTRARS OF )
10259	10259	VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH REGISTRARS )
10260	10260	OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN )
10261	10261	OF IPSWICH, TOWN OF ROWLEY )
10262	10262	REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK )
10263	10263	FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY, WILLIAM )
10264	10264	F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as )
10265	10265	Secretary of the Commonwealth of )
10266	10266	Massachusetts, and KRISTIN KASSNER, )
10267	10267	)
10268	10268	Defendants-Respondents. )
10269	10269	_________________________________________)
10270	10270
10271	10271	DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT KRISTIN KASSNER’S
10272	10272	INITIAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER’S
10273	10273	EMERGENCY PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
10274	10274
10275	10275	Defendant-Respondent Kristin Kassner (“Ms. Kassner”) responds briefly as
10276	10276	follows to the Emergency Petition for Injunctive Relief, filed by Plaintiff-Petitioner
10277	10277	Leonard Mirra (“Mr. Mirra”), solely for the purpose of informing the Single
10278	10278	Justice as to the steps that the Massachusetts House of Representatives intends to
10279	10279	take today regarding the swearing in of Ms. Kassner, as reported in the media and 00181
10280	10280
10281	10281	2
10282	10282
10283	10283	told to Ms. Kassner by representatives of the House.
10284	10284	Last evening, the Speaker of the House issued a public statement, now
10285	10285	widely reported in the media, that the House would not swear in Ms. Kassner, the
10286	10286	Representative-Elect for the Second Essex District, as well as Margaret Scarsdale,
10287	10287	the Representative-Elect for the First Middlesex District, both of whom face court
10288	10288	challenges from their opponents, with the other 158 Representatives-Elect later this
10289	10289	morning. Instead, the House will direct a special committee, which is appointed
10290	10290	every two years to examine the results of the election conveyed to the House by the
10291	10291	Secretary of State after certification by the Executive Council and the Governor, to
10292	10292	thoroughly review the legal issues and report its findings to the House.
10293	10293	Moreover, pursuant to the Massachusetts Constitution, Mr. Mirra will
10294	10294	remain in his position as the Representative for the Second Essex District until the
10295	10295	House concludes this matter. See G.L. Const. Amend. Art. 64, § 1 (“The terms of
10296	10296	senators and representatives shall begin with the first Wednesday in January
10297	10297	succeeding their election and shall extend to the first Wednesday in January in the
10298	10298	third year following their election and until their successors are chosen and
10299	10299	qualified”).
10300	10300	Finally, the Secretary of State has already forwarded the election returns to
10301	10301	the House, and the Single Justice cannot provide the emergency relief that Mr.
10302	10302	Mirra seeks – ordering the Secretary of State to refrain from sending the election 00182
10303	10303	---
10304	10304
10305	10305	3
10306	10306
10307	10307	returns to the House with the returns from Ms. Kassner’s election.
10308	10308	Ms. Kassner further directs the Single Justice’s attention to Wheatley v.
10309	10309	Secretary of the Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 849 (2003), where in the Supreme
10310	10310	Judicial Court, in a similar election dispute, held that the courts have no
10311	10311	jurisdiction to address election disputes such as this dispute where the House of
10312	10312	Representatives itself has taken up the matter. See id.; see also G.L. Const. Pt. 2, C.
10313	10313	1, § 3, Art. 10 (“[t]he house of representatives shall be the judge of the returns,
10314	10314	elections, and qualifications of its own members”). As the Wheatley Court noted:
10315	10315	The House's role as the sole arbiter of a petitioner's claim to a seat as a
10316	10316	representative is by now firmly settled as a matter of State constitutional
10317	10317	law. See Opinion of the Justices, 375 Mass. 795, 815, 376 N.E.2d 810
10318	10318	(1978) (“The constitutional authority of each branch of the Legislature
10319	10319	to judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members is
10320	10320	exclusive, comprehensive, and final”); Greenwood v. Registrars of
10321	10321	Voters of Fitchburg, 282 Mass. 74, 79, 184 N.E. 390
10322	10322	(1933) (“Jurisdiction to pass upon the election and qualification of its
10323	10323	own members is thus vested exclusively in the House of
10324	10324	Representatives”); Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 517, 112 N.E. 91
10325	10325	(1916) (“The power to pass upon the election and qualification of its
10326	10326	own members thus is vested exclusively in each branch of the General
10327	10327	Court. No other department of the government has any authority under
10328	10328	the Constitution to adjudicate upon that subject”). The House has
10329	10329	exercised this authority on numerous occasions.
10330	10330
10331	10331	Wheatley, supra, 439 Mass. at 854.
10332	10332	The Massachusetts House of Representative, a coordinate branch of
10333	10333	government, is well suited to address these matters, has publicly indicated its intent
10334	10334	to do so later this morning, and has the constitutional authority to do so. 00183
10335	10335
10336	10336	4
10337	10337
10338	10338	FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, Defendant-Respondent Kristin
10339	10339	Kassner respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff-Petitioner’s Petition for
10340	10340	Injunctive Relief.
10341	10341	Respectfully submitted,
10342	10342
10343	10343	KRISTIN E. KASSNER,
10344	10344	By her attorney,
10345	10345
10346	10346	Gerald A. McDonough
10347	10347	__________________________________
10348	10348	Gerald A. McDonough, Esq.
10349	10349	BBO #559802
10350	10350	13 Hollis Street
10351	10351	Cambridge, MA 02140
10352	10352	(617) 529-1527
10353	10353	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
10354	10354
10355	10355	Dated: January 3, 2023
10356	10356
10357	10357
10358	10358
10359	10359	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
10360	10360
10361	10361	I, Gerald A McDonough, certify that I have served the attached by causing copies
10362	10362	to be delivered electronically to:
10363	10363
10364	10364	Counsel for Plaintiff Leonard Mirra:
10365	10365	Michael J. Sullivan, Esq.
10366	10366	J. Christopher Amrhein, Esq.
10367	10367	Ashcroft Law Firm
10368	10368	200 State Street, 7h Floor
10369	10369	Boston, MA 02109
10370	10370	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
10371	10371	camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
10372	10372
10373	10373	00184
10374	10374
10375	10375	5
10376	10376
10377	10377	Counsel for Defendant William Galvin:
10378	10378	Anne Sterman, Esq.
10379	10379	Adam Hornstine, Esq.
10380	10380	Office of the Attorney General
10381	10381	One Ashburton Place
10382	10382	Boston, MA 02108
10383	10383	Anne.Sterman@mass.gov
10384	10384	Adam.Hornstine@mass.gov
10385	10385
10386	10386	Counsel for Georgetown Defendants:
10387	10387	Lauren Goldberg, Esq.
10388	10388	Deval C. Braun, Esq.
10389	10389	Gregg J. Corbo, Esq.
10390	10390	KP Law, PC
10391	10391	101 Arch Street
10392	10392	Boston, MA 02110
10393	10393	lgoldberg@k-plaw.com
10394	10394	DBraun@k-plaw.com
10395	10395	GCorbo@k-plaw.com
10396	10396
10397	10397	Counsel for Ipswich Defendants:
10398	10398	George A. Hall, Jr., Esq.
10399	10399	Christina A. Marshall, Esq.
10400	10400	Anderson & Kreiger LLP
10401	10401	50 Milk Street, 21st Floor
10402	10402	Boston, MA 02109
10403	10403	ghall@andersonkreiger.com
10404	10404	cmarshall@andersonkreiger.com
10405	10405
10406	10406	Counsel for Rowley Defendants:
10407	10407	Yael Magen, Esq.
10408	10408	Thomas A. Mullen, P.C.
10409	10409	40 Salem Street, Building 2, Suite 12
10410	10410	Lynnfield, Massachusetts 01940
10411	10411	yaelmagen@thomasamullenpc.com
10412	10412
10413	10413	Gerald A. McDonough
10414	10414	Gerald A. McDonough
10415	10415	Dated: January 3, 2023 00185 00186 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
10416	10416	?JJ
10417	10417	1/
10418	10418	SUFFOLK, Ss SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
10419	10419	FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY
10420	10420	NO. SJ-2023-0004
10421	10421	Appeals Court
10422	10422	No.2022-J-0740
10423	10423	Essex Superior Court
10424	10424	No. 2277CV01243
10425	10425	LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA
10426	10426	v.
10427	10427	TOWN OF GEORGETOWN, REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN OF IPSWICH
10428	10428	REGISTRARS
10429	10429	OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF IPSWICH, TOWN OF
10430	10430	ROWLEY REGISTRARS OF VOTERS, TOWN CLERK FOR THE TOWN OF ROWLEY,
10431	10431	and WILLIAM F. GALVIN, IN HIS OFFICAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF
10432	10432	THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS and KRISTIN KASSNER
10433	10433	JUDGMENT
10434	10434	This matter came before the Court, Cypher, J., on an
10435	10435	emergency petition for injunctive relief, pursuant to G. L.
10436	10436	c. 211, § 3, filed by Leonard Mirra. The petitioner seeks the
10437	10437	extraordinary power of this Court to vacate the order of the
10438	10438	Appeals Court denying an injunction, pending an appeal of the
10439	10439	judgment of the Essex Superior Court.
10440	10440	I have reviewed the petition, exhibits filed by the
10441	10441	petitioner, the response filed by the respondent, Kristin
10442	10442	Kassner, the order of the Appeals Court, and the memorandum and
10443	10443	order of the Essex Superior Court. Upon consideration thereof, 00187 it is hereby ORDERED that the petition be, and the same hereby
10444	10444	is, DENIED without hearing.
10445	10445	Entered: January 4, 2023
10446	10446	By the Court, (Cypher, J.)
10447	10447	Isl Maura S. Doyle
10448	10448	Maura S. Doyle, Clerk
10449	10449
10450	10450
10451	10451	Exhibit A Board of Registrars
10452	10452	Town of Rowley
10453	10453	139 Main St., P O Box 351
10454	10454	Rowley, MA 01969
10455	10455	Phone: 978- 948-2081 / Fax: 978- 948-2162
10456	10456	Email: townclerk@townofrowley.org
10457	10457
10458	10458
10459	10459
10460	10460	Minutes of t he Rowley Board of Registers
10461	10461	Recount of the 2
10462	10462	nd
10463	10463	Essex Representative to the General Court
10464	10464	December 7, 2022
10465	10465	Town Hall, 139 Main Street, Rowley, MA
10466	10466	8:30 a.m.
10467	10467
10468	10468	Members Present: Catie McClenaghan, Chair, Zeth Folds, Silva Wood and Timothy Young
10469	10469	(Temporary Appointment made by the Board of Selectmen on December 5, 2022) .
10470	10470
10471	10471	At approximately 8:15 a.m., Janet Peabody, Assistant Town Clerk, began checking in both
10472	10472	candidates’ agents and issuing name badges.
10473	10473
10474	10474	At 8:30 a.m., T own Clerk Catie McClenaghan, Election Warden Joan Petersen and Officer
10475	10475	Patrick Silva removed the sealed boxes of voted ballots from the safe in the Assessor’s office.
10476	10476	Both candidates were advised of this action in a November 30, 2022 correspondence. No agents
10477	10477	were present. Officer Patrick Silva transported the ballots to the 2
10478	10478	nd
10479	10479	floor auditorium via the
10480	10480	outside handicap elevator.
10481	10481
10482	10482	At approximately 8:40 the Assistant Town Clerk swore in all election recount workers. They
10483	10483	were then split into five teams of two; one reader and one recorder on each team.
10484	10484
10485	10485	Yael Magen, Town Counsel, opened the meeting at approximately 9:00 a.m. by reading the
10486	10486	procedures for the recount. The sealed ballot boxes were then opened, and the runner s began
10487	10487	distributing ballots to the tally tables to be counted into packs of 50 each.
10488	10488
10489	10489	Observers were instructed to set in place at 9:48.
10490	10490
10491	10491	At 9:54 a.m., with five tables of 2 workers each (one reader and one recorder) plus 4 observers
10492	10492	each (consisting of two observers from each campaign) , counting began.
10493	10493
10494	10494	The last packet of ballots, Block 64, which had 48 hand- counted ballots, including five
10495	10495	UOCAVA ballots, was recounted at Table One. The Recount Runner explained to the observers
10496	10496	watching that this was the final packet to be counted.
10497	10497
10498	10498	During the tally of Block 64, no objections were made by either party to any of the ballots while
10499	10499	they were read and tallied. At the end of the count of Block 64, the tally concluded to 48 ballots.
10500	10500	The workers counted the ballots again. As the second count of the ballots took place , an observer
10501	10501	from the Mirra campaign questioned the five UOCAVA ballots. She stated that she was
10502	10502	challenging one them because the bal lot and its associated affidavit were separated and appeared
10503	10503
10504	10504
10505	10505	to have been merely paper-clipped together and not stapled together , as the other four had been
10506	10506	stapled. The runner explained that the challenge time had passed and no objections to ballots
10507	10507	could be done at this time.
10508	10508
10509	10509	Objection was noted and the ballot was taken to the BOR for determination. Kassner’s counsel
10510	10510	objected to bringing this ballot up to the BOR, as the objection was not done in a timely manner
10511	10511	and the recount for B lock 64 had already been called and tallied. Mirra’s counsel objected to the
10512	10512	validity of the ballot on the ground that the ballot and affidavit were not stapled together. The
10513	10513	Kasnner’s campaign objected to Mirra’s objection. It was noted by the BOR that the ballot had a
10514	10514	paperclip and the affidavit had marks that appear to have been made by the same paperclip. The
10515	10515	BOR voted unanimously to count the ballot, and a member of the BOR signed the back of the
10516	10516	ballot and wrote the objection and for whom the vote was given. The ballot was segregated.
10517	10517
10518	10518	Counsel for the Kassner campaign requested to review the ten rejected mail -in ballots, all of
10519	10519	which had been marked as “spoiled” . These were not counted on Election day because the
10520	10520	Image Cast machine rejected them. The Warden explained that it was Rowley’s practice to treat
10521	10521	mail-in ballots rejected by the machine as “spoil ed” since there was no time to contact the voter.
10522	10522	The Kassner campaign challenged five of the ten ballots. These ballots were set aside. Mirra ’s
10523	10523	counsel said they had not been given the opportunity to review these rejected ballots. Town
10524	10524	counsel suggested that the BOR work through the five contes ted ballots and that the Mirra
10525	10525	representatives be allowed to review the remainder.
10526	10526
10527	10527	The five challenged ballots were assembled as Block 65 and were reviewed by the BOR .
10528	10528	Kassner’s counsel argued that in a hand recount spoiled ballots can be counted and brought to the
10529	10529	BOR. Kassner’s counsel further argued that the will of the voter can be determined with
10530	10530	reasonable certainty, in the five ballots , and thus should be counted for Kassner . Mirra’s counsel
10531	10531	objected to the process of counting spoiled ballots during a hand recount, and to bringing spoiled
10532	10532	ballots to the BOR , as their claim was that in a hand recount spoiled ballots cannot be counted.
10533	10533	Mirra’s counsel further objected as to each ballot that it was spoiled. Kassner objected to Mirra’s
10534	10534	objections. Town c ounsel advised the BOR that according to the “Elections Recount ” publication
10535	10535	from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, a hand recount involves the counting of all ballots,
10536	10536	including spoiled ballots. Each ballot was accepted by the BOR, which unanimously voted that
10537	10537	the will of the voter could be determined with reasonable certainty in each case, and a member of
10538	10538	the BOR signed the back of each ballot, writing the objection and for whom the vote was given,
10539	10539	and these votes were added to the totals . The said ballots were segregated with other protested
10540	10540	ballots.
10541	10541
10542	10542	The Mirra agents proceeded to review the remaining five spoiled ballots , discussed the issue for
10543	10543	a significant amount of time, and brought no further objections.
10544	10544
10545	10545	The Mirra agents then requested to review signatures of the applications to the ballots that were
10546	10546	received late but post marked by the 8
10547	10547	th
10548	10548	. This however was not possible as the town clerk time
10549	10549	stamped the AV-8 envelope (the outer envelope) and not the AV-7 envelope (the inner envelope)
10550	10550	where the signature appeared.
10551	10551
10552	10552
10553	10553
10554	10554	It was concluded that both campaign s had lost one vote each from the original count. In
10555	10555	addition, the Kassner campaign gained the five rejected ballot votes, increasing Kassner’s overall
10556	10556	count by four from the original total.
10557	10557
10558	10558
10559	10559	Mirra Kassner Blank Write-in
10560	10560	Protest
10561	10561	Sheets Total:
10562	10562
10563	10563	TOTALS: 1834 1294 78 0 0 3206
10564	10564
10565	10565
10566	10566	At approximately 2:00pm, the BOR Chair made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and
10567	10567	unanimously voted by the members .
10568	10568
10569	10569	The packets were then placed into new boxes that were sealed and transported back to the vault
10570	10570	by Officer Silva.
10571	10571
10572	10572
10573	10573
10574	10574	1
10575	10575
10576	10576	GERALD A. MCDONOUGH
10577	10577	ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
10578	10578
10579	10579	13 Hollis Street 617-529-1527
10580	10580	Cambridge, MA 02140 gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
10581	10581
10582	10582
10583	10583
10584	10584	MEMORANDUM
10585	10585
10586	10586	TO: Representatives Michael S. Day, Daniel J. Ryan, and Bradley H. Jones, Jr.,
10587	10587	Members of the Select Committee of the House to Examine the Return of
10588	10588	Votes for Certain Representative Districts
10589	10589
10590	10590	FROM: Gerald A. McDonough, Counsel for Kristin Kassner
10591	10591
10592	10592	RE: Kristin Kassner’s Pre-Hearing Memo
10593	10593
10594	10594	DATE: January 12, 2023
10595	10595
10596	10596	------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10597	10597
10598	10598	The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide the Members of the Select Committee of
10599	10599	the House to Examine the Return of Votes for Certain Representative Districts with
10600	10600	information on the status of litigation filed by Leonard Mirra, who contests the results of
10601	10601	the recount of the election in the Second Essex District, as well as a recommendation
10602	10602	from Kristin Kassner (“Ms. Kassner”) as to how the Committee should decide this
10603	10603	matter. Accompanying this Memorandum are a number of attachments for documents
10604	10604	referenced in this Memo.
10605	10605
10606	10606	History of the Litigation
10607	10607
10608	10608	The fact that Kristin Kassner prevailed in the recount that took place between December
10609	10609	5th and 8th in 2022 was apparent to both of the candidates after the recount in Topsfield
10610	10610	on December 8th. The official results of the recount were verified in an email dated
10611	10611	December 9th to both Ms. Kassner and Mr. Mirra from Michelle Tassinari, Director and
10612	10612	Legal Counsel for the Elections Division of the Office of the Secretary of the
10613	10613	Commonwealth. On December 14, 2022, the Executive Council amended the previous
10614	10614	certification of the Return of Votes to include Ms. Kassner as the Representative-Elect
10615	10615	for the Second Essex District. That certification was signed by the Governor and the 2
10616	10616
10617	10617	Secretary of the Commonwealth. (Att. A)
10618	10618	1
10619	10619	Ms. Kassner also received an individual
10620	10620	certification of the results of the election, signed by the Governor and the Secretary. (Att.
10621	10621	B)
10622	10622
10623	10623	Despite these acts ratifying the results of the election, and Ms. Kassner’s status, Mr.
10624	10624	Mirra waited until December 21, 2022 to file an election contest in Essex Superior Court.
10625	10625	Mr. Mirra filed the Complaint against the Secretary of the Commonwealth and municipal
10626	10626	officials in three of the six towns that constitute the Second Essex District, but omitted
10627	10627	Ms. Kassner, who was and is surely an indispensable party in the litigation. (AR 004) On
10628	10628	Friday, December 23rd, the last business day before the Christmas holiday weekend, at
10629	10629	6:40 p.m., after the close of business, Mr. Mirra filed a motion for expedited review of
10630	10630	two of the contested ballots and for a preliminary injunction. (AR 046)
10631	10631
10632	10632	Ms. Kassner had to seek assent from all the parties to the litigation before she could file a
10633	10633	motion to intervene and, due to the trial court’s e-filing system, she was unable to file the
10634	10634	motion until Tuesday, December 27th, the day on which the Superior Court held a
10635	10635	hearing on Mr. Mirra’s motion. (AR 001) At the noontime hearing, the Court allowed
10636	10636	Ms. Kassner’s motion to intervene, heard arguments from all parties, and established a
10637	10637	schedule for briefing for Mr. Mirra’s motion and the motion to dismiss that Ms. Kassner
10638	10638	informed the Court she was prepared to file. (AR 001)
10639	10639
10640	10640	Thereafter, Ms. Kassner filed her motion to dismiss (AR 055), and the Secretary and the
10641	10641	municipal defendants opposed Mr. Mirra’s motion for a preliminary injunction while
10642	10642	supporting Ms. Kassner’s motion to dismiss (AR 068, 081). Mr. Mirra filed an opposition
10643	10643	to the other parties’ filings and Ms. Kassner’s motion to dismiss (AR 073, 110). On
10644	10644	December 29, 2022, agreeing with Ms. Kassner, the Court denied Mr. Mirra’s motion for
10645	10645	a preliminary injunction and allowed Ms. Kassner’s motion to dismiss his complaint. (AR
10646	10646	117) The Court specifically held that “Mirra lacks a likelihood of success on the merits.”
10647	10647	(AR 126)
10648	10648
10649	10649	Thereafter, Mr. Mirra continued to seek equitable relief in the Appeals Court and the
10650	10650	Supreme Judicial Court, but in each case the court denied him that relief. (AR 131, 173)
10651	10651	The Appeals Court ruled that it did not find an abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s
10652	10652	ruling that Mr. Mirra “has not shown a likelihood of success on appeal.” (AR 172) After
10653	10653	reviewing Mr. Mirra’s petition, Ms. Kassner’s opposition, and the memoranda issued by
10654	10654	the Superior Court and the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court summarily
10655	10655	dismissed Mr. Mirra’s petition to that court as well. (AR 187) Every judicial forum that
10656	10656	considered Mr. Mirra’s claims concluded that he had no likelihood of success on the
10657	10657	merits of his claims.
10658	10658
10659	10659
10660	10660	1
10661	10661	References to documents in the attachments to this Memorandum are cited as “Att. _.” References to
10662	10662	documents in the Joint Administrative Record are cited as “AR” with the relevant page numbers. Only included in
10663	10663	Attachment A are the relevant pages from the Return of Votes. 3
10664	10664
10665	10665	All that remains of Mr. Mirra’s litigation is a notice of appeal that he filed in Essex
10666	10666	Superior Court, the first step in appealing the Superior Court judgment, which, if Mr.
10667	10667	Mirra continues the appeal, would go back to the Appeals Court which has already held
10668	10668	that he has no likelihood of success on the merits. (AR 128) That appeal itself would also
10669	10669	likely be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. And Mr. Mirra has already stated publicly
10670	10670	that he will accept the results of the Select Committee’s investigation. Consequently, for
10671	10671	all intents and purposes, the involvement of the judicial branch in this matter has
10672	10672	concluded.
10673	10673
10674	10674	Prior Precedents
10675	10675
10676	10676	Since the amended certification of the Return of Votes on December 14, 2022, and over
10677	10677	the opposition of Mr. Mirra, Ms. Kassner has consistently maintained that the House of
10678	10678	Representative, pursuant to Article 10, § 3, Chapter 1, Part 2 of the Massachusetts
10679	10679	Constitution, has exclusive jurisdiction to address the results of the recount. (AR 055)
10680	10680	This dispute is remarkably similar to the dispute surrounding the election in the Third
10681	10681	Barnstable Election in 2002, involving Matthew Patrick (“Mr. Patrick”) and Larry
10682	10682	Wheatley (“Mr. Wheatley”). In that case, as in this case, Mr. Wheatley filed a complaint
10683	10683	after the Executive Council and the Governor had certified the results of the recount. The
10684	10684	eventual decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, Wheatley v. Secretary of the
10685	10685	Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 849 (2003), supports Ms. Kassner’s position in this case.
10686	10686
10687	10687	As in this case, the Legislature in 2003 empowered a Special Committee to investigate
10688	10688	the election, and the Special Committee held a hearing, as your Special Committee is
10689	10689	doing on Friday, January 13th. The Special Committee’s work back in 2003 resulted in a
10690	10690	Final Report issued in March 2003 that included the following findings:
10691	10691
10692	10692	1. The House of Representatives and the Special Committee had exclusive
10693	10693	jurisdiction over the matter;
10694	10694
10695	10695	2. Neither the House of Representatives nor the Special Committee could
10696	10696	delegate their exclusive jurisdiction to any other governmental department;
10697	10697
10698	10698	3. Mr. Patrick, who was issued a certificate of election, was a Member of the
10699	10699	House of Representatives, and only the House could decide issues surrounding
10700	10700	his election and qualification;
10701	10701
10702	10702	4. Any attempted court decision in the matter would be moot; and
10703	10703
10704	10704	5. Mr. Patrick should be declared the Representative from the Third Barnstable
10705	10705	District.
10706	10706	4
10707	10707
10708	10708	(Att. C) The House accepted the Final Report, Mr. Patrick was seated as a Member of the
10709	10709	House, and Mr. Wheatley’s complaint was eventually dismissed.
10710	10710
10711	10711	There are important differences, however, between this dispute and the election dispute in
10712	10712	2011, involving Geraldo Alicea (“Mr. Alicia”) and Peter Durant (“Mr. Durant”). In that
10713	10713	case, Mr. Alicea initially filed a complaint in Middlesex Superior Court on November 29,
10714	10714	2010, before the certification of the election results. (Att. D) Mr. Durant was allowed to
10715	10715	intervene as a defendant and counterclaim plaintiff, and his motion for a change of venue
10716	10716	to Worcester County was allowed. (Att. E) Because the litigation had commenced, the
10717	10717	Executive Council did not certify any results from the election. In that case, as in 2003
10718	10718	and today, the Legislature appointed a Special Committee which eventually concluded, as
10719	10719	has the Worcester Superior Court, that the election had ended in a tie, and a new election
10720	10720	was scheduled. (Att. F)
10721	10721
10722	10722	That dispute regarding the 2010 election is distinguishable from this case because, unlike
10723	10723	in Ms. Kassner’s case, the Executive Council had yet to certify the results of the election,
10724	10724	and both parties had accepted the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. It was similarly open
10725	10725	to Mr. Mirra to file a complaint contesting the results of the recount before the Executive
10726	10726	Council voted to certify the election results on December 14th, but, as the Superior Court
10727	10727	noted, Mr. Mirra’s failure to initiate litigation before the Executive Council certified Ms.
10728	10728	Kassner as the Representative-Elect was fatal to his claim that the judicial branch had
10729	10729	jurisdiction over this matter because jurisdiction instead lies only with this Special
10730	10730	Committee. (AR 122)
10731	10731
10732	10732	The Special Committee Should Recommend that Ms. Kassner Be Declared the
10733	10733	Representative from the Second Essex District.
10734	10734
10735	10735	Mr. Mirra is likely to contend that the Special Committee should second-guess the results
10736	10736	of the recount, and that the Committee should review ballots and other materials from the
10737	10737	recounts. Such a review is unwarranted in this case, and there is no precedent for such a
10738	10738	review either in the 2002 or 2012 elections.
10739	10739
10740	10740	As an initial matter, and as the Supreme Judicial Court has held, votes counted by
10741	10741	election officials are presumed to be legal and any challenger of those votes has the
10742	10742	burden of overcoming that presumption. See McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters of
10743	10743	Brockton, 833 Mass. 833, 846 (1982). During the recount, numerous observers oversaw
10744	10744	the counting of the ballots, several municipal attorneys were present to give advice to the
10745	10745	boards of registrars, and each candidate was represented by counsel. In considering each
10746	10746	objection, the boards of registrars listened to the arguments advanced by each party’s
10747	10747	counsel, reviewed the objected-to ballots, debated among themselves as to the voters
10748	10748	intent, and, in the end, either rejected Mr. Mirra’s contention about the intent of voters or
10749	10749	determined that the intent of the voter could not be determined with reasonable certainty. 5
10750	10750
10751	10751	See, e.g., O’Brien v. Board of Election Commissioners of City of Boston, 257 Mass. 332,
10752	10752	338 (1926).
10753	10753
10754	10754	Under state law, the local Board of Registrars are the “judges” during a recount because
10755	10755	they are the most fit to understand the local voter. The expertise of the local registrars
10756	10756	was demonstrated in the recount in Topsfield, where Mr. Mirra objected to a ballot where
10757	10757	the voter had drawn a line between the candidates that the voter appeared to have
10758	10758	supported, including Ms. Kassner, and the ovals on the ballot. While that method of
10759	10759	indicating support for candidates was new to most of the observers, the local registrars
10760	10760	recognized that drawing a line between a candidate’s name and an arrow on ballots had
10761	10761	been the form of ballots used in Topsfield until recently. Coming from the community,
10762	10762	understanding its voters, and knowing the history of Topsfield elections allowed the
10763	10763	Topsfield Registrars to recognize that the voter was likely voting in a way that that voters
10764	10764	in Topsfield had in fact voted for many years. In that case, the Registrars affirmed the
10765	10765	vote for Ms. Kassner, while Mr. Mirra protested that ballot.
10766	10766
10767	10767	Moreover, and more importantly, the three municipalities who Mr. Mirra names in his
10768	10768	Complaint – Georgetown, Ipswich, and Rowley – have vigorously opposed his motion
10769	10769	for a preliminary injunction and the factual basis for his Complaint. (AR 081) These
10770	10770	municipal defendants did so, not because they have an interest in which candidate is
10771	10771	seated,
10772	10772
10773	10773	but only because they have a strong interest in defending the processes used
10774	10774	in conducting the election and the District-wide recount and in ensuring that
10775	10775	the will of the voters can be implemented without delay. It is the position of
10776	10776	each of the Municipal Defendants that the election laws and guidance of the
10777	10777	Secretary of the Commonwealth were meticulously followed in the course of
10778	10778	the election and recount, and that those procedures resulted in a fair election
10779	10779	that was free from fraud or undue influence. The will of the voters is
10780	10780	paramount, and their votes should not be disenfranchised simply because the
10781	10781	election was decided by a narrow margin.
10782	10782
10783	10783	(AR 81-82) Those municipalities addressed and rebutted every factual allegation asserted
10784	10784	by Mr. Mirra. (AR 87-94) Unlike Mr. Mirra and Ms. Kassner, these municipalities and
10785	10785	their officials and employees have no self-interest in the outcome of this matter – their
10786	10786	interest is solely the public interest, and their position on these matters is entitled to
10787	10787	substantial deference.
10788	10788
10789	10789	The work of the 193rd General Court has already begun and the people of the Second
10790	10790	Essex District deserve representation. Ms. Kassner humbly and respectfully requests that
10791	10791	the Special Committee, review the very detailed reports from the Towns outlining the
10792	10792	recount process and reject any effort by Mr. Mirra to prolong this dispute and open up the 6
10793	10793
10794	10794	recount records and, instead, follow the example of the Legislature in 2003 and declare
10795	10795	that Ms. Kassner is the Representative from the Second Essex District.
10796	10796	ATTACHMENT A
10797	10797	Governor and Lieutenant Governor
10798	10798	Attorney General
10799	10799	Secretary of State
10800	10800	Treasurer
10801	10801	Auditor
10802	10802	Representative in Congress
10803	10803	Councillor
10804	10804	Senator in General Court
10805	10805	Representative in General Court
10806	10806	District Attorney
10807	10807	Sheriff
10808	10808	Statewide Ballot Questions
10809	10809	Public Policy Questions
10810	10810	Compiled by
10811	10811	William Francis Galvin
10812	10812	Secretary of the Commonwealth
10813	10813	Elections Division
10814	10814	Certified by the
10815	10815	Governor and Council
10816	10816	Return of Votes
10817	10817	For Massachusetts State Election
10818	10818	November 8, 2022 20
10819	10819	TWELFTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
10820	10820
10821	10821	Norman J. Orrall, of Lakeville (Republican) has ....................................................... 12,370
10822	10822	and appears to be elected.
10823	10823	All Others ................................................................................................................... 186
10824	10824	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,677
10825	10825	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 17,233
10826	10826
10827	10827
10828	10828	THIRTEENTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
10829	10829
10830	10830	Antonio F.D. Cabral, of New Bedford (Democratic) has .......................................... 6,977
10831	10831	and appears to be elected.
10832	10832	All Others ................................................................................................................... 225
10833	10833	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 2,144
10834	10834	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 9,346
10835	10835
10836	10836
10837	10837	FOURTEENTH BRISTOL DISTRICT
10838	10838
10839	10839	Adam Scanlon, of North Attleborough (Democratic) has ......................................... 11,212
10840	10840	and appears to be elected.
10841	10841	All Others ................................................................................................................... 169
10842	10842	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 4,823
10843	10843	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 16,204
10844	10844
10845	10845
10846	10846	FIRST ESSEX DISTRICT
10847	10847
10848	10848	CJ Fitzwater, of Salisbury (Republican) has .............................................................. 8,657
10849	10849	Dawne F. Shand, of Newburyport (Democratic) has ................................................. 12,790
10850	10850	and appears to be elected.
10851	10851	All Others ................................................................................................................... 18
10852	10852	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 798
10853	10853	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 22,263
10854	10854
10855	10855
10856	10856	SECOND ESSEX DISTRICT
10857	10857	(AMENDED PER RECOUNT )
10858	10858
10859	10859	Leonard Mirra, of Georgetown (Republican) has ...................................................... 11,762
10860	10860	Kristin E. Kassner, of Hamilton (Democratic) has .................................................... 11,763
10861	10861	and appears to be elected.
10862	10862	All Others ................................................................................................................... 5
10863	10863	Blanks ........................................................................................................................ 638
10864	10864	Total Votes Cast ............................................................................................. 24,168
10865	10865	The foregoing fmdings are this day adopted.
10866	10866	ValeneMcChy
10867	10867	Administrative Secretary
10868	10868	Office
10869	10869	of
10870	10870	the Secretary
10871	10871	ofth
10872	10872	WILLIAM
10873	10873	In
10874	10874	Council, Boston, December 14, 2022
10875	10875	Charles D. Baker
10876	10876	Governor
10877	10877	onwealth, December 14, 2022
10878	10878	CIS GALVIN
10879	10879	Secretary
10880	10880	of
10881	10881	the Commonwealth
10882	10882	A true copy.
10883	10883	63 ATTACHMENT B
10884	10884	$.!T~l5 . .!T~
10885	10885	~ tk Co-~ f/ 6&5'U»
10886	10886	<fPk=, it; '7'¥='11:; &, tlze, /w,{/YM', ff oo-tes,:fiP ~pe,seatatioe, {/l/ tlw .Yme1w (]ow'{;,
10887	10887	J'(J-m,t/ze,
10888	10888	made, uzto-tk flilu:e, ff &u, Jecl'etCll.;11 aad ea:amuzed aad ce1y'ied ~ &u, .Yooe1YW1'
10889	10889	aad (]~ @'/=61/,, to-t/2& l'(:ljUU'e/JZe/ZOS, ff ow· (JolM'Litatio-rv aad --«zar.s,, t/zat, .jtOtl/
10890	10890	t!wJ:atd§C'lduz, IJ g-UZ&l'ne,,• /uzue, 6-eerv d:t.(y,, elecLed a, ~'e&e/?Latio& t/l/ tlw .Yme1'ab
10891	10891	(]Ott1'f;fot·J:atd 0tdlico.,_/v1•aadcb'tl/!J'tktenn,fftWO-.!flXU'V7=&Jvw <f/,,/edze.rdty
10892	10892	{/l/ ~.!/1 {/l/ tlw.!f=/' ff ('}.w, -Z/Jl'(:I two-t:lto-a&aad aad twel7ffl,-thee,.
10893	10893	JI= {UY,,, tlze1:!fi1y,,, kwy J'LUIV7Waed to-atte/'ltb a, .Yme1w (Joa1<t:, to-6-e-/2o-lderv at; dze,
10894	10894	(Ja;,a-o4 t/l/ rlJw.torv, orv&Jv'ifb Cfjl~ff&nzom/z,ff~.!/1 6-et//!J'tkfa<tlv
10895	10895	clayff J:atiimoat:/4 aadto-tdw3,0-a1 <.r,ea/;,t/l/dze, :i'lotM,e,ff~1'e&e/?Latio=aCC01~
10896	10896	t/2ao Me/<e, l7Uffl' 6-e-a, clue, ar4'-e1nb/y,, ff ~l'e&e/lLal:ioe,r, = J'atd dry fa< o=a~ tlw
10897	10897	~ltztio& /){{J'U7,e,J',5'/ Je1<tauwy,, Me!'et:o-.
10898	10898	.Ytoe1v av tlw (JotulCiJ (Jlwnzbf!I• {/l/ rlJo.rtorv, tudlv &u< §;-eat; Jed k'etlllto-~ tizir,
10899	10899	t/2,dzeddtyff .Alouenz6e1;-t/l/tlw._flefU'ff {Yw< -«Jl'cttwo-tlzotaaadaadtwe17.(y,--two-, aadff
10900	10900	tlw:Tmlej.JeMe/Zee, (!/tlw VmtedJtate.s, ff Amedca; tlwtwo- ~w=,f,hy-,r,eoen,d,. ATTACHMENT C
10901	10901	HOUSE . • • • • • • No. 3720
10902	10902	'Ql:be ~ommonhlealtb of ~assncbusetts
10903	10903	FINAL REPORT
10904	10904	OF THE
10905	10905	SPECIAL COMMlTTEE OF THE HOUSE
10906	10906	TO EXAMINE THE
10907	10907	RETURNS OF VOTES FOR REPRESENTATIVE
10908	10908	IN
10909	10909	THE SEVERAL
10910	10910	REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS
10911	10911	OF THE
10912	10912	COMMONWEALTH RELATIVE TO THE
10913	10913	THIRD BARNSTABLE DISTRICT
10914	10914	March 18, 2003. 2 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
10915	10915	Appendix A
10916	10916	MAJORITY REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
10917	10917	ELECTIONS FOR THE THIRD BARNSTABLE DISTRICT.
10918	10918	IN
10919	10919	TRODUCTION
10920	10920	On November 5, 2002, elections were held throughout the com
10921	10921	monwealth of Massachusetts. The race for state representative in the
10922	10922	Third Barnstable District was one of the many contests included on
10923	10923	the ballot There were two candidates vying for the House seat in the
10924	10924	Third Barnstable District; the incumbent, Matthew C. Patrick, a
10925	10925	Democrat, and the challenger, Larry F. Wheatley, a Republican.
10926	10926	At the end of the election the ballots were counted. Mr. Patrick
10927	10927	received 8,640 votes and Mr. Wheatley received 8,628 votes. Thus,
10928	10928	Mr. Patrick prevailed by a margin of 12 votes. Mr. Wheatley asked for
10929	10929	a
10930	10930	recount on November 13. 2002, and Mr. Patrick requested one the
10931	10931	next day A recount was ordered and took place on November 23, and
10932	10932	November 25, 2002. The result of the recount was 8,654 votes for
10933	10933	Mr Patnck and 8,637 votes for Mr. Wheatley. Therefore, Mr. Patrick
10934	10934	extended his margin of victory to 17 votes.
10935	10935	On December 4. 2002, the Secretary of the commonwealth trans
10936	10936	mitted copies of the returns from the November 5. 2002. statewide elec
10937	10937	tion to the Governor and Council for examination, tabulation and
10938	10938	cert1ficau on. Included in the returns that the Secretal) transmitted were
10939	10939	the amended returns from the Third Barnstable District. All the returns
10940	10940	were cen1fied on December 4. 2002, b) the Governor and Council in
10941	10941	accordance v. 1th the prov1s1ons of G L. c. 54. §§ 115 and 116.
10942	10942	Mr. Patrick was issued a certificate for elccuon for Representallve
10943	10943	in the General Court 111 the Third Barnstable Distnct signed b) the
10944	10944	Governor and Sccretar) 111 accordance with the provisions of General
10945	10945	Law, Chapter 54. * 116. Said certificate was transm1llcd from the
10946	10946	Secretary to Mr Patrick on December 18, 2002.
10947	10947	On that same date, December 18, 2002, Mr. Wheatley filed 111 the
10948	10948	BarnsLablc Superior Court a complaint to set aside the election. A
10949	10949	hearing on 1hc complaint was heard by Jus11ce Richard F. Connon on
10950	10950	December 27, 2002 On December 30. 2002. Justice Cannon issued an
10951	10951	order calling for a new election lo be held no sooner than 60 days
10952	10952	from the d;itc of his order. 2003] HOUSE -No. 3720 3
10953	10953	On January 1, 2003, the first Wednesday of January, in accordance
10954	10954	wnh the Massachusetts Com,titution. the House of Representatives
10955	10955	was called into session. A special committee on elections consisting
10956	10956	of three house members was appointed by the Speaker
10957	10957	of the House.
10958	10958	The committee ordered that pursuant to Amended Article 64 of the
10959	10959	Massachusetts Constitution, Mr. Patncl--remain as a holdover
10960	10960	so that
10961	10961	the Third Barnstable District could have representation 111 the House
10962	10962	of Representatives until said House of Representatives made a deter
10963	10963	mination as to the duly elected Representative from the Third Barn
10964	10964	stable District.
10965	10965	On January 13, 2003, the Special Committee on Elections held a
10966	10966	hearing on the Third Barnstable Di strict House seat. Mr. Wh eatley,
10967	10967	together ~ith his counsel. Edward O'Brien was invited to give testi
10968	10968	mony before the committee, as was Mr. Patrick, and his attorne),
10969	10969	William McDermott. The committee also secured the presence of a
10970	10970	stenographer to transcribe the proceedings. In addition, the committee
10971	10971	had in its possession a copy of the official court pleadings, exhibits
10972	10972	and transcripts from the Barnstable Superior Court hearing.
10973	10973	At the committee hearing, Attorney O'Brien spoke first on behalf
10974	10974	of his client, Mr. Wheatley, followed by Mr. Wheatley himself. Next,
10975	10975	Attorney McDermott spoke on behalf of his client, Mr. Patrick. After
10976	10976	Attorney McDermott concluded, Attorney
10977	10977	O'Brien spoke again in
10978	10978	rebuttal. Both counsels 1,ubmitted briefs on behalf of their clients.
10979	10979	While
10980	10980	each counsel testified before the committee, they were
10981	10981	asked, and answered, specific questions by sa id cornrniuee. Chairman
10982	10982	DiMasi asked both attorneys whether they and/or their clients agreed
10983	10983	that the House of Representatives had jurisdiction to decide this elec
10984	10984	uon controversy based upon the Massachusetts Constitution or any
10985	10985	other state law. Attorney O'Brien did not believe that the Hou se of
10986	10986	Representatives or the special committee had jurisdiction o,cr this
10987	10987	matter, but Attorney McDermott did agree that the House of Repre
10988	10988	~entatives and the special committee appointed by th em had exclus1vt.:
10989	10989	jurisd1ct1on to hear the case.
10990	10990	Auomey McDermoll testified that.
10991	10991	111 hi, opinion. the special com
10992	10992	miltee was granted its ju ri,diction pur<;uant to Part II . c. I. -..1, art I 0,
10993	10993	(hereafter referred to as Article I 0), of the Ma-.sac.hu~cll.., Const 1111-
10994	10994	llon. However, Allorney O'Brien argued that Amendment Ar11clc IO I,
10995	10995	(Amendment IO I), not Article IO of said constitution was. the control
10996	10996	ling authority and that 1t did not grant JUrisd1ct1011 to the co111m111cc 4 HOUSE - No. 3720 [March
10997	10997	ARGUMENT
10998	10998	I. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND ITS SPECIAL
10999	10999	COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURIS
11000	11000	DICTION
11001	11001	OVER THIS MATTER.
11002	11002	Part II of Chapter 1 of Section 3 of Article IO of the Massachusetts
11003	11003	Constitution clearly grants exclusive jurisdiction over this matter to
11004	11004	the
11005	11005	House of Representatives. It states in pertinent pan: "The house of
11006	11006	representatives shall be the judge of returns, elections, and qualifica
11007	11007	tions of its ow11 members, as pointed out in the constitution; shall
11008	11008	choose their own speaker; appoint their own officers, and settle the
11009	11009	rules
11010	11010	and orders of proceeding in their own house:"
11011	11011	Likewise, the Supreme Judicial Court has consistently affirmed that
11012	11012	the House of Representatives is exclusively empowered through
11013	11013	Article IO to decide the election of its own members. In l 874, the
11014	11014	Supreme Judicial Court decided the landmark case of Peabody v. School
11015	11015	Committee of Boston, 115 Mass. 383 (1874). In Peabody, the plaintiff
11016	11016	was
11017	11017	elected to the Boston School Committee. However, a majority of the
11018	11018	school
11019	11019	committee members voted at a meeting to declare that she was
11020	11020	not duly elected because she was disqualified. The sole reason for her
11021	11021	disqualification
11022	11022	was the fact that she was a woman.
11023	11023	The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the city of Boston's charter
11024	11024	which stated: "the board of aldermen, the common council, and the
11025	11025	school committee, shall have the authority to decide upon all ques-
11026	11026	11011s relative to the qualifications, elections and returns of their
11027	11027	respective
11028	11028	members." The Court noted that this authority was granted
11029	11029	to the city through the legislature, so they turned to Article IO of the
11030	11030	constitution to assist in determining the outcome. Id. at 384. Relying
11031	11031	on Article IO the Peabody Court said: "It cannot be doubted that
11032	11032	either branch of the legislature is thus made the final and exclusive
11033	11033	judge of all questions whether of law or of fact, respecting such elec
11034	11034	tions,
11035	11035	returns or qualifications, so far as they are involved in the
11036	11036	determination
11037	11037	of the right of any person to be a member thereof; and
11038	11038	that while the constitution, so
11039	11039	far as it contains any provisions which
11040	11040	are applicable, is
11041	11041	to be the guide, the decision upon either house of
11042	11042	the question whether any person is or is 1101 entitled to a seat therein
11043	11043	cannot be disputed or revised by any court or authority whateve1:"
11044	11044	(Emphasis Added) Id. at 384. 2003) HOUSE -No. 3720 s
11045	11045	The Supreme Judicial Court further stressed in Peabody, that ''the
11046	11046	/egislarure has thus clearly manifested !Is inrem1011 that in Boston.
11047	11047	and 111 every or her ciry established pre1•iously to the passage o.f the act
11048	11048	,w11· before us, the question of the right of any person to u seat in
11049	11049	ellher of rhe rwo boards chosen hr the people to ser\'e as their repre
11050	11050	sentative in rhe
11051	11051	government of the city, ( as in the case of the membu.s
11052	11052	of each branch of rhe legislature of the Commonwealth,) should be at
11053	11053	once and finally determined by the body of which such person clauns
11054	11054	10 be a member, so as to enable the organi-::.ation to be completed.
11055	11055	1•aca11cies ro be filled up. and the enrire body ro proceed wirh a full
11056	11056	representarion of irs consrituents ro the rransacrion of its appropriate
11057	11057	business. without waiting for rhe comparatively slow progress of judi
11058	11058	cial proceedings for the decision of any question of fact or of law
11059	11059	upon which such nghr may depend." Id. at 386.
11060	11060	Thus, the Court held that the decision of the school committee ban
11061	11061	ning the plaintiff from a seat on said committee was final, and noted
11062	11062	that the courts were without authority to "consider a question wluch
11063	11063	rhe legislature, i11 the exercise of the powers vested in ir by the consti
11064	11064	w1io11, ha(d) made ir the duty of the school committee to decide finally
11065	11065	and without appeal. " Id. at 387.
11066	11066	Similarly, 17 years late r, in 1891. the Attorney General i ssued an
11067	11067	opinion
11068	11068	on the subject whereby he stated: "The House of Represenra
11069	11069	til'es,
11070	11070	or its election commit1ee, subject to the approval of the House,
11071	11071	has power to determine the evident intent of rhe vorer from an inspec
11072	11072	tion of the ballot. where the strict lefter of the law as to affixing or
11073	11073	filling in the name or marking the ballot has nor been complied with;
11074	11074	as by the ConsritUlion, (Parr II), Chaprer I. Secrion 3, Arricle JO, the
11075	11075	House of Representatives 'shall be the judge of the returns. elections,
11076	11076	and qualifications of iLs own 111en1bers; · which provision is held to
11077	11077	give rhe House absolute poi1:er over the subject. But it may be proper
11078	11078	to add that the House of Represenratives of Massachusetts has been
11079	11079	accustomed in rnch cases to follow the rules of law." Opinion of the
11080	11080	Attomey General 3, 8 (1891 ). 6 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
11081	11081	JI. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND ITS SPECIAL
11082	11082	COMMITTEE HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION THAT
11083	11083	MAY
11084	11084	NOT BE DELEGATED TO ANY OTHER GOVERN
11085	11085	MENT DEPARTMENT.
11086	11086	The exclu:,ive JUrisdicuon that the House has over this matter may
11087	11087	not be delegated to any other branch of government. In Dinan v.
11088	11088	Swig, 223 Mass. 516 (/916), the Supreme Juc.l1cial Court examined a
11089	11089	~tatute that allowed three judges
11090	11090	of the Superior Court to investigate
11091	11091	an election if five
11092	11092	or more voters petitioned that they believed an indi
11093	11093	vidual was elected through fraud. The chree judges would be empow
11094	11094	ered,
11095	11095	tf they found fraud or corrupt practices, 10 declare the election
11096	11096	void and oust an elected official from office.
11097	11097	The Court struck down this statute as a violation
11098	11098	of Article IO of
11099	11099	the Massachusetts Constttution.
11100	11100	It held: "The power ro pass 11po11 the
11101	11101	election and qualificmwn of irs own members thus is vested excl11-
11102	11102	si11ely
11103	11103	in each branch of the General Court. No other department of
11104	11104	the gol'ernmem has anv authority 1111der the Constirurion ro adjudicate
11105	11105	upon that subject. The grant of power is comprehensive, full and com
11106	11106	plete. Ir is necessarily exclusive, for the Constitution contains 110
11107	11107	ll'Ords permitting e11her branch of the legislature to delegate or share
11108	11108	that powe,: Ir musr remain ll'here the sovereign authority of the Stare
11109	11109	has placed it. General phrases elsewhere in the Constitution, which in
11110	11110	the absence of an explicit imposition of power and duty would permit
11111	11111	the e11actme111 of laws 10 govern the subject, ca11no1 narrow or impair
11112	11112	rite positive declaration of the people's will r!tat this power is vested
11113	11113	solely in the Senate and House respectively. It is a prerogmil'e
11114	11114	belonging 10 each house, which each alone can exercise. It is not rns
11115	11115	ceptible o_f being dep111ed. " Id. at 517.
11116	11116	The Dinan Court further noted in striking down the proposed
11117	11117	statute;
11118	11118	'"No legisla1ive body can be the sole j11dge of the election and
11119	11119	qualiflcarwn of ,ts members when it is obliged to accep1 as a final
11120	11120	decision 1011c!ting the purity of the election of one of its members
11121	11121	made by another department of the government in an inquiry 10 ll'hich
11122	11122	rhar
11123	11123	legislative body is not a party and which it has not caused to be
11124	11124	instituted." Id. at 518.
11125	11125	Therefore. the exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representa
11126	11126	tives is exactly that,
11127	11127	exclusit•e. Neither the executive nor the judicial
11128	11128	branch
11129	11129	of government can assert jurisdiction; and the House cannot
11130	11130	transfer its jurisdictional authority to either other branch. 2003] HOUSE -No. 3720 7
11131	11131	111. MATTHEW PATRICK WAS ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF
11132	11132	ELECTION, THEREFORE HE IS A MEMBER OF THE
11133	11133	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; AND ONLY THE HOUSE
11134	11134	MAY DECIDE ISSUES SURROUNDING HIS ELECTION
11135	11135	AND QUALIFICATION.
11136	11136	In Banks v. Election Co mmissioners of Boston, 327 Mass. 509
11137	11137	(1951), two men, Mr. Banks and Mr. Sullivan, claimed victory to the
11138	11138	Ward 9 seat on the Boston City Council. The board of el ection com
11139	11139	missioners refused to issue a certificate to either man, but instead
11140	11140	allowed Mr. Sullivan to sit as a "holdover''. Mr. Banks petitioned the
11141	11141	Superior Co
11142	11142	urt to count several more votes in his fa vor, and to dis
11143	11143	count several v otes that his opponent had received. Mr. Sullivan al so
11144	11144	petitioned the Superior Court asking that the board of elections certify
11145	11145	him and that he be d eclared the victor. The Superior Court referred the
11146	11146	case to the
11147	11147	Supreme Judicial Court.
11148	11148	In order to d
11149	11149	ecide whether it had jurisdiction to h ear the case, the
11150	11150	S
11151	11151	upreme Judicial Co 1Jrt focused on the statutory langu age that
11152	11152	allowed the ci ty council to judge the elections and qualifications of its
11153	11153	o
11154	11154	wn members. Section 50 of Chapter 486 of the Acts of 1909, as
11155	11155	amended by Section 15 of Chapter 479 of the Acts of 1924, states:
11156	11156	"The city council shall be the judge of 1he elec1ion and qualifications
11157	11157	of its members." The Banks Court ruled that under Section 4 of
11158	11158	Chapter 449 of the Acts of 1895 the board had all the powers and
11159	11159	duties relating to the "de1ermi11at1011 of 1he results of the elections ...
11160	11160	Id. at 512.
11161	11161	Despite this clear language, the Court concluded that they did have
11162	11162	Jurisdiction. The) held that. "1111t1I the board deter111111es such (elec
11163	11163	tion) results
11164	11164	and issues a certificate to one 11'!10m it has determined to
11165	11165	have received the ore necessar_ for elecuon, there does 11ot exist
11166	11166	anyone who 1s a 'member' whose election and qua!Uications 1he clfy
11167	11167	council ma_, JLulgc " Id. at 512. Further, the Court stated .. Up to the
11168	11168	po111t that a certificate hw been 1.1.rned, at least, the matter 1.1 in co11-
11169	11169	1rol of the co11rt, whirh may in prope, proceed1ng.1 direct 1he board to
11170	11170	11hom to is.me rhe ceniflcate." Id. at 512.
11171	11171	The Banks case 1s very similar to the present situation in two
11172	11172	aspects. First. 111 each ~1tual1on there was a close elccuon v. hich was
11173	11173	contested by both side!'>. Also the 111cumbent 111volvcJ 111 both cases
11174	11174	was allowed 10 remain seated 111 his respective pos11Jon as .i 'holdover"·.
11175	11175	However there 1, al,o a ma.101 d1s11ncuon between flanks and the 8 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
11176	11176	present case. In Banks, the board of election commissioners refused
11177	11177	to issue a
11178	11178	certificate of election. Thus, the courts could reasonably
11179	11179	argue that they had retained jurisdiction In
11180	11180	the present case however,
11181	11181	a
11182	11182	certificate wac; issued to Representative Patrick signaling that he
11183	11183	was the elected representative from the Third Barnstable District, and
11184	11184	ending whatever junsdictional claim that the JUd1c1ary or executive
11185	11185	branch may have asserted.
11186	11186	As a result
11187	11187	of Banks, a "member" exists, when an indi\1dual 1s
11188	11188	transmitted a certificate of election. Once a certificate ts issued, and a
11189	11189	member exists, the matter rests strictly wtlh the House
11190	11190	of Representa
11191	11191	tives, and that body alone may
11192	11192	judge the ind1v1dual's qualifications to
11193	11193	be a member.
11194	11194	IV. ANY ATTEMPTED COURT DECISION ON THIS MATTER
11195	11195	WOULD BE MOOT.
11196	11196	In a case that is nearly identical to the present situation, the
11197	11197	Supreme Judicial Court held that once the House of Representatives
11198	11198	asserts its jurisdiction to decide all matters relating
11199	11199	to the election of
11200	11200	its members, any court decision would be moot. In Greenwood v.
11201	11201	Registrars of Voters, 282 Mass. 74 (1933), Louis N.M. DesChenes
11202	11202	was elected as representative from the Eleventh Worcester District. The
11203	11203	election had been held on November 8. 1932. On November
11204	11204	16, 1932. a
11205	11205	recount was held and Mr. DesChenes was again declared the winner.
11206	11206	On
11207	11207	the following day, November 17, 1932, Mr. DesChenes was issued his
11208	11208	certificate
11209	11209	of election. The next day, November 18, 1932, his opponent.
11210	11210	John
11211	11211	J. Gilmartin filed a petition in the Supreme Judicial Court chal
11212	11212	lenging the issuance
11213	11213	of the certificate to Mr. DesChenes.
11214	11214	In the meantime, on January 4, 1933, the General Court was con
11215	11215	vened and
11216	11216	Mr. DesChenes presented his certificate of election. The
11217	11217	House
11218	11218	of Representatives created a special commission to investigate
11219	11219	the election.
11220	11220	On February 7. 1933, the Supreme Judicial Court heard
11221	11221	oral arguments on the matter.
11222	11222	On February 15, 1933, the Court refused
11223	11223	10 order Mr. DesChenes to surrender his certificate. They noted that
11224	11224	the House had created a special commission which held hearings, had
11225	11225	heard
11226	11226	testimony from witnesses and arguments from counsels. The
11227	11227	Court staled:
11228	11228	"It is manifest from the facts already stated thm the House
11229	11229	of Representatives,~ exercising its jurisdict1011 01
11230	11230	1er the entire subject
11231	11231	of the returns, electtom and qual,jicatio11s of the member entitled to
11232	11232	sit
11233	11233	for the Ele1•e11th Worcester District as between the petirioner and 2003] HOUSE -No. 3720 9
11234	11234	rntervenor as nval claimants, and that 1t is proceedi11g to a final
11235	11235	determi11at1011 of that subject." Id. at 79.
11236	11236	Further, the Court held that they were without Jurisdiction to act.
11237	11237	"All cognate molters at rh1s srage have come within the }11risdict1on of
11238	11238	the House of Represenratives. The decision of such questions has
11239	11239	become moot so far as this court ,s concerned and rherefore, any deci
11240	11240	sion II ould be nugatory or unavailing. " Id at 80.
11241	11241	Thus, once the House of Representatives asserts its jurisdiction to
11242	11242	decide all matters relating to the election of its members, any court deci
11243	11243	sion 1s moot. The Hou se of Representatives has asserted its jurisdiction
11244	11244	over this matter by establishing a special committee on elections and
11245	11245	holding hearings with testimony and oral arguments. Therefore, any
11246	11246	court decision or opinion on this matter is moot and uncontrolling.
11247	11247	In 1965. the House of Representatives also asserted its jurisdiction
11248	11248	regarding the election
11249	11249	of the Representative from the Seventeenth
11250	11250	Essex District. There, like the present case, and the Greenwood case,
11251	11251	the November 3, 1964, election involving Edward S. Morrow, the
11252	11252	incumbent Republican Representative, and his opponent Aaron M. I.
11253	11253	Shinberg, a Democrat, was very close. Unlike the present situation
11254	11254	and the Greenwood case however, neither Mr. Morrow. nor Mr. Shin
11255	11255	berg were certified.
11256	11256	The House of Representatives convened on January 6, 1965, and
11257	11257	the
11258	11258	mauer was referred to a special committee on elections.
11259	11259	Mr. Morrow was allowed to remain seated as a holdover until the
11260	11260	House was able to determine who was entitled to that seat. The House
11261	11261	ultimately decided that
11262	11262	Mr. Shinberg, the Democrat. was the duly
11263	11263	elected Representative from the Seventeenth Es<;ex District.
11264	11264	Article IO and all the relevant case law 1s clear and unambiguous.
11265	11265	Mr. Wheatley's a ttorney, Mr. O'Brien, does not dispute the language
11266	11266	of Article 10. "Article 10 says what it <,ays." (sec page 23 of tran
11267	11267	script). However, Attorney
11268	11268	O'Brien's pos1t1on 1c.; that the House may
11269	11269	have had jurisdiction under Article IO up until the adoption of
11270	11270	Amendment IOI. (c.;ee page 20 or transcript). He claims that Amend
11271	11271	ment l O I, not Ar11clc IO 1<, the JUnsdic11on on this malll!r. (see page 22
11272	11272	of transcript). I le ba<,cs that suppoc.;illon on the fact that Arllclc IO was
11273	11273	adopted
11274	11274	in I 780 and Amendment IO I was amended in 1974. (sec
11275	11275	page 19 of tranc.;cnpt). Therefore. Attorney O' Hncn argues tha1
11276	11276	Amendment IOI e!'t<;entially updated Aruck 10. HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
11277	11277	V. THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN AMENDED ARTICLE
11278	11278	101 AND ARTICLE 10 OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTI
11279	11279	TUTION.
11280	11280	Amendment Article IO I of the Mas&achusetts Constitution provides
11281	11281	111 perllnem part. ''The House of Represematives shall consist of 011e
11282	11282	hundred and si \'.t)' members. The General Court slw/1, at its first reg-
11283	11283	11/ar session after the year in which said census was token. divide the
11284	11284	Co111111011wealth into one hundred and sixty representatil•e districts of
11285	11285	co1111guous territory so that each represe11ta11ve will represe111 a11
11286	11286	equal n11mber of inhabitants . The General Court may by law limit
11287	11287	the 11111e 1nth111 which judictal proceedings may be instituted calling in
11288	11288	question all) such division. Every representative, for one year at least
11289	11289	w1111ediately
11290	11290	preceding his election, shall have been an inhabitant of
11291	11291	the dismct for which he is chosen and shall cease to represent such
11292	11292	dtstncr when he shall cease to be an inhabitant of the Co111mo11wealth.
11293	11293	The manner of callin~ and conducting the election for the choice of
11294	11294	represeHWtives. and of ascerta111111g their elect1011, shall be prescribed
11295	11295	by /a11."
11296	11296	ln addition to the constitutional language, a brief history is war
11297	11297	ranted. Amendment 101, which was most recently amended by
11298	11298	Amendment Article
11299	11299	119. was adopted by joint sessions of the General
11300	11300	Court
11301	11301	in the years 1971 and 1973, and was approved by the peo ple on
11302	11302	November
11303	11303	5, I 974. Section 4 of Amendment 101 annulled Article 92,
11304	11304	which had been adopted by the General Court in I 968 and 1969, and
11305	11305	was approved by the people on November 3, 1970. Section 3 of said
11306	11306	Article 92 annulled Articles 21 and 22 of the state constitution. Both
11307	11307	Articles were adopted by the General Court in 1856 and 1857, and
11308	11308	were approved by the people on May I, 1857. and contain language
11309	11309	similar to Amendment Article
11310	11310	101 as it provide~ for the census of the
11311	11311	inhabitants and membership
11312	11312	of the House of Representatives.
11313	11313	Thus, Amendment
11314	11314	IOI detailing census, r epresentative, senatorial
11315	11315	and councilor districts, along with apportionment and residence
11316	11316	thereof,
11317	11317	has, in effect, been in existence since 1857. Interestingly,
11318	11318	Article
11319	11319	IOI, while annulling several articles of the constitution, never
11320	11320	annulled Article
11321	11321	I 0.
11322	11322	Thus, every case decided dealing with election controversies
11323	11323	occurred after
11324	11324	1857. As mentioned, in each such case, the Supreme
11325	11325	Judicial Court ruled that Article
11326	11326	LO was the proper constitutional pro
11327	11327	v1s1on that granted exclusive Jurisdiction 10 the House of Represe nta- 2003] HOUSE -No. 3720 11
11328	11328	tives to decide all factual and legal matters relating to the qualifica-
11329	11329	11on of election of its members.
11330	11330	Similarly,
11331	11331	in I 978, four years after Amendment Artic le I 01 was
11332	11332	amended the Supreme Judicial Court in
11333	11333	its Opi11io11 of the Justices
11334	11334	375 Mass. 795 (1978), once again recognized that pursuant to Article 10
11335	11335	of the constitution: ··rhe constirutional authoriry of each branch of rhe
11336	11336	legislafllre
11337	11337	to judge rhe elecrions, returns, and qualifications of its
11338	11338	members is
11339	11339	exclusive, co mprehensive, and final." Id. at 815.
11340	11340	VI. A SUP REME JUDICIAL COURT JUS TICE REFUSED TO
11341	11341	ORDER A
11342	11342	NEW ELECTION IN A S IMILAR SITUATION.
11343	11343	The Democratic primary election held on September 14, 1976 for
11344	11344	the office of State Representative from the Twentieth Hampden Dis
11345	11345	trict pre
11346	11346	sents many similarities to the matter before this committee. ln
11347	11347	that election, William D. Mullins received 3,196 votes and Steve T.
11348	11348	Chmura r eceived 3,179 votes. As a result of a recount, Mr. Mullins
11349	11349	received
11350	11350	3,191 votes and Mr. Chmura received 3,185 votes. In that
11351	11351	election several irregularities occurred.
11352	11352	In Precinct C of the town of
11353	11353	Palmer it was discovered that at least I 2 incorr ect ballots had been
11354	11354	distributed to voters. The ballots
11355	11355	contained the names of candidates
11356	11356	for the First Hampden District 111stead of the Twentieth Hampden Dis
11357	11357	trict.
11358	11358	When the defect was discovered the ballot box was opened and
11359	11359	ballots were taken from the ballot box
11360	11360	in violation of G.L., c. 56, § 50.
11361	11361	At least three voters who claimed that they had been given incorrect
11362	11362	ba
11363	11363	llots which were placed in the ballot box were eiven new ballots
11364	11364	which contatncd the names
11365	11365	of the candidates from the Twentieth
11366	11366	Hampden District.
11367	11367	During an uncertain period
11368	11368	of time, no ballots were di-.1ributed 10
11369	11369	voters in Precinct C of the town of Palmer until the correct ballo1s
11370	11370	were delivered from town hall to Prec111ct C. Al leasl one Rcpuhltcan
11371	11371	received a Democratic ballot and stated
11372	11372	in an affidavit tha1 he voted
11373	11373	for Mr Chmura.
11374	11374	Ward 6 Precincl C of the city of Chicopee i'> part of 1he Twentieth
11375	11375	Hampden District
11376	11376	In accordance with G.L. c. 54 ~ 61 as 11 applie-. to
11377	11377	primaries
11378	11378	111 G.L c. 51 § 24 notice of elccuon 1-. re4u1rcd 10 he pub
11379	11379	li~hed at lea'>t 7 day'> before the hold111g of a primary Said 11011cc v.a
11380	11380	not published until 1he day before the primary.
11381	11381	In the town
11382	11382	of Ludlow, a voter voted by abl.cntec hallot and vo1cd
11383	11383	for Mr Mullin-.. The absentee ballot wa<, not marked 111 the prc!-cnce 12 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
11384	11384	of an official authorized by law to administer oaths which was
11385	11385	required by G.L. c. 54 § 92 at that time.
11386	11386	Steve T. Chmura filed a petition in the Supreme Judicial Court for
11387	11387	Suffolk County alleging that because of these numerous irregularities
11388	11388	a
11389	11389	new primary for the Democratic nomination should be held or in the
11390	11390	allerat,ve both the names of Mr. Chmura and Mr. Mullins should
11391	11391	appear on the November 2. 1976, ballot as no Republican had quali
11392	11392	fied
11393	11393	for the November ballot.
11394	11394	On October 19, 1976, Associate Justice Francis J. Quirico of the
11395	11395	Supreme Judicial Court ruled that despite all of those irregularities,
11396	11396	plaintiff Chmura was not entitled to relief and the action was dismissed.
11397	11397	In
11398	11398	the present case, 13 voters in a Bourne precinct were given bal
11399	11399	lots
11400	11400	that listed the candidates for the Second Plymouth Representative
11401	11401	Dtstnct instead of the Third Barnstable Dii;trict. Also. there was a
11402	11402	35 minute delay at a Barnstable precinct because officials ran out of
11403	11403	ballots. During the delay, no one in line was permitted to vote.
11404	11404	Mr Wheatley argued that several people wa1t111g in line to vote left.
11405	11405	Finally,
11406	11406	during the recount, 8 absentee ballots did not contain the race
11407	11407	for representative from the Third Barnstable District, and thus were
11408	11408	counted as blanks.
11409	11409	As mentioned earlier at least 12 voters in Palmer were given the
11410	11410	wrong ballots in the Chmura case. Further compounding this mix-up,
11411	11411	three people who claimed that they received wrong ballots were
11412	11412	allowed to vote again. Additionally, as in the present situation there
11413	11413	was a
11414	11414	delay in the Chmura case at one of the precincts, which pre
11415	11415	vented people in line from voting. Similarly, there was a discrepancy
11416	11416	in
11417	11417	Chmura involving an absentee voter.
11418	11418	Unlike the present situation however, in Chmura, Massachusetts
11419	11419	laws were violated. First, a Republican voter admitted he was given a
11420	11420	Democratic ballot and voted as a Democrat. Secondly, the ballot box
11421	11421	was opened in violation of General Law Chapter 56 § 50. In short, the
11422	11422	situation was a mess. Yet, Justice Quirico did not order a new elec
11423	11423	tion, He cited McRobbie v. Registrars of Voters of Ipswich, 322
11424	11424	Mass. 530, 533 (1948) "'Bw it is not enough to invalidate an election,
11425	11425	that illegal votes were received. There
11426	11426	must be proof that the reception
11427	11427	of the illegal vote:, changed the result." Id. at 533.
11428	11428	In the present situation, there is simply no way to determine if any
11429	11429	of these votes that were not counted would have changed the result of
11430	11430	the election. Any attempt to do so would be to engage in speculation 2003] HOUSE - No. 3720 13
11431	11431	and conjec ture. Mor eover. 1he time delay that occurred al one of
11432	11432	the precincts seems to have been the result of an acc idenl. sim ilar to
11433	11433	Citizens for a Referendum Vote v. Worcester, 375 Mass. 218 (1978).
11434	11434	In Worcester, the city he ld a referendum vote on whether to appro
11435	11435	priate money to build the Worcester Civic Center. The voting ho urs
11436	11436	were fixed at 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Seven of the 79 precincts were not
11437	11437	open on time. The delays ran ged from twelve to eighty minutes.
11438	11438	Despite the fact that a lmost ten perce nt of the po lls did not open on
11439	11439	11me, the Supreme Judicial Co urt did not invalidate the el ection.
11440	11440	A
11441	11441	lthough Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 54, Section 60 states:
11442	11442	"a city clerk sh all send the b allots 10 each polling pla ce before the
11443	11443	opening
11444	11444	of the polls"; the Supreme Judi cial Court ruled that "not
11445	11445	eve,y deviation from such a prol'ision auto matically upsets the re sult
11446	11446	of an election." Id. at 219; clling Swift v. Registrars of Voters of
11447	11447	Quincy, 281 Mass. 271, 276 (1923).
11448	11448	VII. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA TIVES HAS NO AUTHOR
11449	11449	ITY TO ORDER A NEW ELECTION.
11450	11450	There is no question based upon the Massac husetts Constitution
11451	11451	a
11452	11452	nd all case law on this matter that the House of Re presentatives has
11453	11453	exclusive jurisdic tion over this matte r. Despite this power however,
11454	11454	the House ca nnot order a n ew election because there is currently no
11455	11455	constituuonal or statutory authority for the House of Representatives
11456	11456	to order a new el
11457	11457	ection un der these circumstan ce!>. Massachusetts
11458	11458	General Laws, Cha pter 54, Section 141 states:
11459	11459	Upon a vacan cy in the office of representative in the general court
11460	11460	or upon
11461	11461	failure 10 elect, the speaker of the ho11se of representatives
11462	11462	shall issue precepts 10 the aldermen of each city and the selectmen of
11463	11463	each town comprising the district or any part thereof. appointing such
11464	11464	Wne as the house of representatives may order for cm election to Jiff
11465	11465	such vacancy; provided, that if such vacancy occurs during a recess
11466	11466	during the first and second annual sessions of the same general co11rr,
11467	11467	the speaker may fix the time for an election to fill .rnch vacancy. All
11468	11468	such elections .\hall he held on a Tuesday. Upon receipt of rnch pre
11469	11469	cept,\, the aldermen or the selectmen rlwlf rail an election, which
11470	11470	shall he held in accordance 1t ith the pre( epH.
11471	11471	Under current <;tatulc, therefore, a new ckct1on can be ordered by
11472	11472	the House only if there is either a vacancy, or a failure to elect a rcprc
11473	11473	sentative. Neither condition exists
11474	11474	in the present ,111iat1on There I 14 HOUSE - No. 3720 [March
11475	11475	not currenlly a vacancy in the office of representative from the Third
11476	11476	Barnstable District, and the district has not failed to elect a representa-
11477	11477	11ve. Therefore, an order for a new election cannot be adopted by the
11478	11478	House of Representatives in this matter.
11479	11479	VIII. MATTHEW PATRICK SHOULD BE DECLARED THE
11480	11480	R
11481	11481	EPRESENTATIVE FROM THE THIRD BARNSTABLE
11482	11482	DISTRICT.
11483	11483	Matthew C Patrick was elected the state representative from the
11484	11484	Third Barnstable District on November 5, 2002. He won by 12 votes.
11485	11485	After a recount on November 23, and 25, 2002. Representative
11486	11486	Patrick's margin of victory increased to 17 votes. On December 18.
11487	11487	2002, Representative Patrick was issued a certificate of election from
11488	11488	the Governor and the Secretary of State. On that same date, his oppo
11489	11489	nent, Mr Wheatley filed his petition in the Barnstable Superior Court,
11490	11490	which was heard on
11491	11491	December 27, 2002 On December 30, 2002, Judge
11492	11492	Connon issued his ruling
11493	11493	calling for a new election not before 60 days.
11494	11494	On January I, 2003. the House of Representatives was convened and
11495	11495	allowed Representative Patrick to continue to serve in a "holdover"
11496	11496	capacity pursuant to Article 64 of the Massachusetts Constitution. The
11497	11497	General
11498	11498	Court also created a special committee on elections to review
11499	11499	this matter.
11500	11500	On January 13, 2003, the special committee held its hearing.
11501	11501	The Massachusetts Constitution grants the House of Representatives
11502	11502	exclusive jurisdiction
11503	11503	to judge the returns. elections, and qualifications
11504	11504	of its own members (see Mass. Con st. Part II, c.l, s.3, art. JO). When
11505	11505	Matthew C. Patrick was issued his certificate of election on Decem
11506	11506	ber 18. 2002, he became a "member" whose qualifications for election
11507	11507	the
11508	11508	House of Representatives may judge. (see Banks at 512). The House
11509	11509	of Representatives· authority to judge his qualifications for election is
11510	11510	comprehensive, full and complete. (see Dinan, at 517). Up until 1he
11511	11511	pomt that the General Coun asserts its author11y. a court may conceiv
11512	11512	ably
11513	11513	have Jurisdiction. (see Banks at 512; Greenwood at 79). But, once
11514	11514	the General
11515	11515	Court asserts its jurisdiction. no other department of the gov
11516	11516	ernment, 1nclud111g 1he jud1c1ary, has authority to adjudicate on the
11517	11517	matter.
11518	11518	(<;ee Dinan at 517; Ban ks at 512).
11519	11519	The House of Representatives has asserted i1s jurisdiction by con
11520	11520	venmg a special committee on elections and holding hearings which
11521	11521	afforded the parties 1he opportunity to give testimony and present evi
11522	11522	dence. (see Greenwood at 79). Thus, the House took control of the 2003] HOUSE -No. 3720 15
11523	11523	controversy
11524	11524	and any allempt by the judiciary to render an opinion on
11525	11525	this matter is moot because any judicial decision is unavailing and
11526	11526	nugatory (see Greenwood at 80).
11527	11527	Since the House of Representatives is grant ed this authority through
11528	11528	the Constitution, it cannot be doubted that the House is thus made the
11529	11529	final and exclusive judge of all questions, whether of law or of fact,
11530	11530	respecting such
11531	11531	elections, returns or qualifications, so far as they are
11532	11532	involved in the determination of the right of any person to be a member.
11533	11533	Therefore,
11534	11534	the decision of the House of Representatives to question
11535	11535	whether a person is or is not entitled to a seat therein cannot be disputed
11536	11536	or revised by any court or authority whatever. (see Peabody at 384).
11537	11537	Additionally, this position was also reiterated by Assistant Attorney
11538	11538	General
11539	11539	Peter Sacks in his letter to House Counsel Louis A. Rizoli
11540	11540	dated January 12. 2003. Attorney Sacks noted: "the jurisdiction of the
11541	11541	house is
11542	11542	governed by the constitutio nal provision 'that the house of
11543	11543	representatives s hall be the judge of the returns, elections. and quali
11544	11544	fications
11545	11545	of its own members, as pointed out in the constitution.'
11546	11546	Mass. Const. Parr II. c. 1, s.3, art. JO." He further stated that: "The
11547	11547	Supreme
11548	11548	Judicial Court has ruled that the House's power in this
11549	11549	regard is not invaded by judicial proceedings to determine and
11550	11550	enforce election officials' compliance with statutory pro cedures for
11551	11551	elections for seats in the House of Representatives, at Least up until
11552	11552	the 11111e a certificate of election is issued." citing Banks at 512-513.
11553	11553	CONCLUSION
11554	11554	Based on the foregoing Matthew Patrick is hereby declared the
11555	11555	Representative from
11556	11556	the Third Barnst able District.
11557	11557	SALVATORE
11558	11558	F. DIMASI,
11559	11559	Chairman.
11560	11560	EUGENE L. O'FLAHERTY. 16 HOUSE -No. 3720
11561	11561	Appendix B
11562	11562	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
11563	11563	[March
11564	11564	THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
11565	11565	In the Matter of:
11566	11566	THE ELECTION FOR
11567	11567	REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GENERAL
11568	11568	COURT OF THE COMMONWEAL TH
11569	11569	OF MASSACHUSETTS,
11570	11570	REPRESENTING
11571	11571	THE THIRD
11572	11572	BARNSTABLE DlSTRlCT, BETWEEN
11573	11573	MATTHEW C. PATRICK and
11574	11574	LARRY
11575	11575	F. WHEATLEY
11576	11576	MINORITY REPORT OF THE
11577	11577	SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
11578	11578	Representative George N. Peterson, Jr. of Grafton, as the minority
11579	11579	party member on the Special Committee on Elections, hereby submits
11580	11580	this Minority Report concerning the above captioned matter now
11581	11581	pending before the special committee.
11582	11582	INTRODUCTION
11583	11583	The matter now pending before the special committee is a contest
11584	11584	of the November 5, 2002 election for State Representative in the
11585	11585	3rd Barnstable District. The two contestants for that seat were incum
11586	11586	bent State Representative Matthew C. Patrick of Falmouth
11587	11587	("Patrick"), a Democrat, and his Republican challenger. Larry F.
11588	11588	Wheatley of Barnstable ("Wheatley"). A post-elect1on recount indi
11589	11589	cated that Patrick received 17 more votes than Wheatley but also man
11590	11590	ifested cenain troubling irregularities and violations of election statutes.
11591	11591	Credible evidence shows that as a direct result of those problems at
11592	11592	least
11593	11593	21 voters, and perhaps as many as 66 voters, were not given the
11594	11594	chance to participate in the election and have their votes counted as
11595	11595	part of the final tally. Because the number of disenfranchised voters is
11596	11596	almost four times the apparent margin of victory, there is a \ery real 20031 HOUSE -No. 3720 17
11597	11597	possibility that Wheatley would have b een declared the victor and seated
11598	11598	in the Hou e if irregularities had not occurred The elecuon result there
11599	11599	fore 1s in c onsiderable do ubt and a new elec tion must be held.
11600	11600	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
11601	11601	Wheatley challenged the results of the election 111 Superior Co urt
11602	11602	and. on December 30. 2 002, obtained a ruling ordering that a new
11603	11603	election be held to determine the will of the el ectorate and correct the
11604	11604	irregularities of the first vote Neither party filed a timely appeal of
11605	11605	the court's decision. How ever, a new el ection has not been held or
11606	11606	even scheduled.
11607	11607	Instead, the House of Re presematives assembled and
11608	11608	seated Patrick under the so-cal led "hold-over" provis ions of Anicle 64
11609	11609	of the Cons titution. Then the House appointed this Special Committee
11610	11610	to canvas the el ection re turns in the 3rd Barnstable District and advise
11611	11611	the members how to proceed. A he aring was held on January 13.
11612	11612	2002, during which e vidence was received and the parties were given
11613	11613	an opportunity to be h eard. No subsequent meeting was held until
11614	11614	March 1 8, 2003, at which time the Dem ocratic majority of the special
11615	11615	committee abruptly r ecommended that Patrick be seated -without a
11616	11616	new election a nd notwithstanding the court's order and the irregulari
11617	11617	ties the court found.
11618	11618	FACTS
11619	11619	The fo llowing facts were established by the parti es on the basis of
11620	11620	the eviden ce presented to the sp ecial comm1uce during the hearing on
11621	11621	January 13. 2003.
11622	11622	On November 5, 2002 a statewide el ection was held for numerous
11623	11623	offices, incl
11624	11624	uding that of Stale R epresentallvc. Patrick and Wheatley
11625	11625	were the duly-qualified contestants for election 111 the 3rd Barnstable
11626	11626	District. The 3rd Barnstable Di..,trict is compri.,ed of precinct'> 5 and 7
11627	11627	of the t
11628	11628	own of Barnstable, precincts 5 and 6 of the town of Bourne.
11629	11629	precinct <; 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of the town of f-almouth, and pnx1nct.., 2. 4
11630	11630	and 5
11631	11631	of the town of Mashpee. all in the county ol Harm,tahlc ~.!!.!'
11632	11632	c. 125 of the Acts of 200 I In 11 tal returns showed that Patrick wa, the
11633	11633	winner, having received 8,640 votes as -:omparcd to 8,628 fo1
11634	11634	Wheatley (a margin of 12 vote<,). Wheatley (on Novcmher 13th. 2002)
11635	11635	and Patrick (on November 14th. 2002) both reqtu.:,tccl a recount. 18 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
11636	11636	which was held on November 23 and 25, 2002. As a result of the
11637	11637	recount.
11638	11638	Patnd. was declared to have received 8,654 votes and Wheatley
11639	11639	wa~ declared to
11640	11640	have received 8,637 votes (a margin of 17 votes).
11641	11641	Wheatley claimed irregularities that violated state elecllons law
11642	11642	and/or disenfranchised certain voters. First, he asserted that 13 voters
11643	11643	111 one Bourne precinct were improperly handed ballots at the polls
11644	11644	that I isled the 2nd Plymouth District representative race instead of the
11645	11645	comest for the 3rd Barnstable District. Those voters' ballots were
11646	11646	recorded as blanks. Second, Wheatley argued that there was a 35-
11647	11647	1111 nule t1111e period during which one of the two polling places in
11648	11648	Barnstable (his home town) ran out of ballots. The delay was from
11649	11649	4:30 p.m. to 5:05 p.m., traditionally a t1111e of heavy voter turnout.
11650	11650	Voters
11651	11651	standing in line during that time were not allowed to cast a
11652	11652	vote, and testimony from a police officer indicated that many voters
11653	11653	abandoned their place in line. In fact, the line of voters shrank from
11654	11654	approximately 75 people to 30 people. Third, Wheatley noted that cer
11655	11655	tain absentee ballots presented for tabulation at the recount did not list
11656	11656	the
11657	11657	contest for the 3rd Barnstable District and, as a result, those bal
11658	11658	lots (which contained votes) were counted as blanks. Those ballots
11659	11659	referred
11660	11660	to other races. as follows:
11661	11661	Town
11662	11662	Bourne
11663	11663	Falmouth
11664	11664	Barnstable
11665	11665	Mashpee
11666	11666	# Ballots Di strict Listed (Improperly)
11667	11667	3 2nd Plymouth District
11668	11668	3
11669	11669	Barnstable. Dukes & Nantucket
11670	11670	2nd Barnstable District
11671	11671	5th Barnstable District
11672	11672	Thus, the evidence shows that approximately 66 qualified voters
11673	11673	(perhap~
11674	11674	more) were prevented from casting a vote in the election -
11675	11675	almost four times the number of votes separating Patrick and
11676	11676	Wheatley in the recount. Many of those voters were from Whea1ley's
11677	11677	home town
11678	11678	In the weeks following the election, everal significant evems tran
11679	11679	:-.p1red. First, on December 4, 2002. the Governor and the Governor·s
11680	11680	Counci I ccrti fied the returns or the election to the Secretary or State.
11681	11681	The cert1ficat1on listed Patrick as the wmner of the 3rd Barnstable
11682	11682	D1stnct race, 8.655 votes to 8,638 (a margin of 17 votes). Second. on
11683	11683	December 18. 2002. the Secretary of S1a1e issued a Certificate of
11684	11684	Electi on 10 Patrick, in form sufficient for him lo present lo the House 2003) HOUSE -No. 3720 19
11685	11685	Sergeant-at-Arms for admission to the House Chamber on Swearing
11686	11686	in Day. See G.L. c. 3 §§ 1-4.
11687	11687	1 The certificate indicated that Pamck
11688	11688	"appeared" to have been elected. Third. also on December 18, 2002,
11689	11689	Wheatley filed
11690	11690	suit within the Barnstable Superior Court to contest the
11691	11691	election re ults. Wheatley's Complarnt (supported by affidavits)
11692	11692	requested that the court (I) issue a temporary injunction restraining
11693	11693	the Secretary of State from transmitting the certified vote totals to the
11694	11694	House of Representatives. for purposes of seating Patrick as a Represen
11695	11695	tative, (2) prohibit Patrick from sitting as a Representative (3) declare
11696	11696	the
11697	11697	November 5, 2002 election void, and (4) order a re-vote.2
11698	11698	On December 30, 2002, following notice and opportunity to be
11699	11699	heard. the Superior Court (Connon, J.) issued a Memorandum of
11700	11700	Decision on Wheatley's Request for Preliminary Relief, finding that
11701	11701	"Wheatley has shown that irregularities and statutory violations did
11702	11702	occur", and that those violations were sufficiently numerous "such
11703	11703	that the elect10n would be placed in doubt and thus a new election is
11704	11704	necessary."
11705	11705	See Memorandum of Decision at 3, 5. On that basis, the
11706	11706	Coun ordered chat a new election take place "at the earliest possible
11707	11707	date but not sooner than 60 days from entry of judgment." See id. at 5.
11708	11708	On Wednesday, January 1, 2003, two days after the decision of the
11709	11709	coun
11710	11710	was made public. the House convened for purposes of organizing
11711	11711	11self for the 183rd Session of the General Court. The House appointed a
11712	11712	s
11713	11713	pecial committee, cons1sti ng of Represemati ves DiMasi. 0 · Flaherty
11714	11714	a
11715	11715	nd Peterson. to canvas the returns of the November 5, 2002 election and
11716	11716	to report back to the Hou se as to its findings. The Hom,e then issued an
11717	11717	Order that Rep. Patrick's term be permitted to continue on a tempo rnl)
11718	11718	("hold-over") basis. until such time as the Hou !>c t able to detc nrnnc.
11719	11719	under the Constitullon, who j.., the duly-el ected Rc pre\enlativc from the
11720	11720	Third Barnstable Di
11721	11721	!>tricL On that basis, Rep. Patric !-. dtd not take the
11722	11722	o
11723	11723	ath of office for the 2003-2004 term.
11724	11724	I Ccn1hC<1Uon uJ \'111e-s 1, 1 ,l..tlUIOr) procc,, rnvol\'mg ...cvc:nal 01111.ch h ,1Mt, wuh the: Scu~l,lf\.• Ctf •h~ t 0111
11725	11725	mnnwcillth a,,cmhhug clc:4.:UC>U H'.lorn-. 1tnd prc,cn1111~ 1hcm Ill lht! (io\.crm,r ,md ("11uni;:1I Im lht·u 1t·,w" Sr~
11726	11726	Ci L c ' ~ J ·111c fio..,crnor .tnd Coun ul t·Aonnmc omd 1.iholiilC' 1hci return, ,md 1r,m,nu1 their t ,•rnfn·,umn 10 1tw
11727	11727	Scc.:rc1,1ry /d lbt' Sc-crct.ll) 1hcn 1·. rG4um:d 10 tr.111 mt ~, h,t 01 the tcrllhcd clc,h·d rc1irc!\.4.'.'n1,ll1\l"' 111 Ilk lluw.,•
11728	11728	Scr~c:m1-,
11729	11729	1 1-/01, nol l.,tcr tti,m the ·1 Ul•,day rrcccdrnf the.· fir,1 Wcdm.·MJ11y HI J,11111.try lolhm
11730	11730	tn~ 1he ,1;1tt.• t·kc
11731	11731	uun (a c. ,ru: ll;i t'k:tt")rc the ,c."mn hegm,l Id 11,c ~cr1,:.c::,mt ,u Arn,, u,1.!, that 11'1 lo d•:cuk "'hn ,h.1II he
11732	11732	"dm111cd 10 1al..c ~ ._.l.'.,JI ,11-,lfl dcclct.J rcprc,clllJtlH" on lhe hl'\I tl.t) 01 the '\C..""Wn (, I 1. l § 2
11733	11733	2 Neither p,lft)' t1,,cr1, thi1l Ihde w,.._. ,1ny u1h:n11onal ,rn,ronclu, t 20 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
11734	11734	ARGUMENT
11735	11735	There is no decisive authority in the Massachusetts Constitution or
11736	11736	111 case law to determme whether the House of Representatives has
11737	11737	exclusive power to decide if a new election should be held. In other
11738	11738	words. it is unclear whether the H ouse has jurisdiction to ignore and
11739	11739	thereby effectively veto the court's findings and its order for a new
11740	11740	election
11741	11741	between Patrick and Wheatley. Given the constitutional ques
11742	11742	tions at stake in the relationship between the legislative and judicial
11743	11743	branches, the question of Jurisdiction presents a "solemn occasion" for
11744	11744	which certification of the issue to the Supreme Judicial Court 1s
11745	11745	appropriate.
11746	11746	Assuming arg11endo that the House has jurisdiction. the majority's
11747	11747	recommendation that Patrick be seated without a new election is
11748	11748	wrong. Constitutional principles, standards of accountability and the
11749	11749	rule
11750	11750	of law all mitigate strongly in favor of the conclusion that a new
11751	11751	el
11752	11752	ection should be held. Any other decision would thwart democracy
11753	11753	and undermine the founding principles of the Commonwealth. There
11754	11754	fore, due to statutory violations and irregularities in the 3rd Barn
11755	11755	stable District el ection. the special committee should r ecommend that
11756	11756	the
11757	11757	Speaker issue precepts ordering a new vote between Patrick and
11758	11758	Wheatley, and the victor should be seated.
11759	11759	I. THE HOUSE'S JURISDICTION IS UNCERTAIN; THERE
11760	11760	FORE,
11761	11761	THE HOUSE SHOULD CERTlFY THE QUESTION OF
11762	11762	ITS JURISDICTION TO THE SJC BEFORE EXERCISI NG
11763	11763	ITS AUTHORITY CONTRARY TO COURT ORDER.
11764	11764	There is conflicting authority as to the ability of the House to
11765	11765	d
11766	11766	ecide this controversy, given that a court of competent jurisdiction
11767	11767	issued a final ord er for a new election before the Hou se convened and
11768	11768	first
11769	11769	attempted to assert its power. Because of the uncertain state of
11770	11770	the case law and the solemnity of this occasion, and so as to prevent a
11771	11771	constitutional crisis from developing further, the H ouse should certify
11772	11772	the
11773	11773	question of its junsdict1on to the Supreme Judicial Court for
11774	11774	review.
11775	11775	The maJority of the special comm11tee contends that the House has
11776	11776	jurisdiction over thi~ mailer, arguing that the Massachusetts Constitu
11777	11777	tion
11778	11778	makes the House the sole and exclusive judge of the election and
11779	11779	qualificauons of its members. See Const. pt. 2 c. I § 3, art. IO (here- 2003) HOUSE -No. 3720 21
11780	11780	inafter "art. I 0") ("'the house of representatives shall be the judge of
11781	11781	the returns. elections and qualifications of its own members. a!
11782	11782	pointed out in the constitution ... and the senate and house of repre
11783	11783	sentatives may try and determine all cases where their rights and priv
11784	11784	ileges
11785	11785	are concerned, and which. by the constitution, they have
11786	11786	authority to try and determine, by committees of their own member!-,
11787	11787	or in such other way as they respectively might think best.")3
11788	11788	4 The
11789	11789	majority relies on language
11790	11790	in Massachusett,; cases holding that the
11791	11791	grant of power confers '·comprehensive, full and complete"' authority.
11792	11792	See Dinan I'. Swig. 223 Mass. 516, 517 ( 1916). See also Greenl\'ood v.
11793	11793	Board of Registrars of Vore rs, 282 Mass. 74 ( 1933) (court refused to
11794	11794	order recount of votes where Legislature had organized); Peabodr 1·.
11795	11795	School Committee of Bosron. 115 Mass. 383. 384; Co(fi11 v. Co(fin,
11796	11796	4 Mass. I ( 1808)
11797	11797	Massachusetts ca<;eS have held that the House ·s powers under art. I 0
11798	11798	apply to questions of both law and fact, and that once those power!, are
11799	11799	exercised the House's actions cannot be reviewed by the Court. See id.
11800	11800	Courts also have held that since the grant of authority is specific, any
11801	11801	general language found elsewhere in the Constitution, which otherwise
11802	11802	would allow another branch to pass laws to control the subject, can nei
11803	11803	ther narrow nor impair the House's power. See Dinan. 223 Mass. at 517.
11804	11804	Finally, cases have held that the House's authority cannot be shared with
11805	11805	or delegated to any other branch of government, under principles of <;ep
11806	11806	arauon of powers. and that no other branch of government can usurp or
11807	11807	mtrude upon that power. See id. at 518.5
11808	11808	The cases upon which the majority relics do not provide adequate
11809	11809	Justification for the House to exercise jurisdiction in thi~ controversy
11810	11810	because they are premised on factual <,cenanos that are plainly d1slln
11811	11811	gu1shable from the 3rd Barnstable Distnct situation. The critical dis
11812	11812	tinguishing factor is that most cases involved court intervention
11813	11813	aftN
11814	11814	1
11815	11815	One ca ... h._, held 1ha1 1hc l,r\l pun of , 10 upphc, 10 rn1ernal a lt,u" nl 1hr llnu,c only Sa Uprn1,•~.1,JJ/,r
11816	11816	hi.lliw. HI MJS 7M.767 (19~J) llo"'cvcr 1hc t,1\C dealt wuh !he pum,hmcnt ol" pm,11c person who 111tn•
11817	11817	nipted .a commmcc hcanng rhu n t ur11. lcur 1f the ,1.ncment ;1pphc, hen.: ll1L' .SJt" could tkt1<k lh~ 1-.,uc
11818	11818	.: fl.:tr1d. , attorney, rai,ed ., "'h k or ,ubJctt ruoitu;r Jum.d1ctaon" .1, un alllrmall\c cSdcn,c lit 111, An,¼.:t iu
11819	11819	\~Ucf Comp1ainl m Court
11820	11820	Howc,cr the Se,rct.ary of St;.ilc dad 11n1 htr .tn)' pkatJrn~ therein 111.11 r,u,~d a
11821	11821	lild or ,ubJcct maucr 1un,d1coo111.t~ on ,1ffirm1.1Uvt' cldcu ..... ~ and he h11, nol ,lJlpc,1lctl the court ~ JUJ~11k:1H
11822	11822	~ lrucrc\lm~I)', om: nt 1hc mcJ,I h1,u,rn.: de-hale, O\o~r 1hc lrnt1h fll All IO luulo. pl.Kc "hhl'U wonu~n \.\-("tC' ~1u·11 th~
11823	11823	nghr to vole Jlir yue,uon w.1, whether lhc Jt)lh Anwmlmcn1 whu.:h l"itlcrttlt•tl ,-ulfr,tyc lo \omen ,1ut11m,111~.,lh
11824	11824	J!\O allowed 1h~m io 0111 for 1hc l1 1111'-I! ,m<l ~·11Jtl" <ir "hi:thcr lh1.• kr1,t.1111rc-"";i-. rt:qu1rc•I 1 11 cn1 1 11 U\~ n rul1,.•!t
11825	11825	on 1he "tUbJC1.t .SU J,';,ilfrcy .. /'II,• fh,tdu/tt oj Wm11t'11 /or /'11hl1t 0/Jtt,· fl11tl, ,-11t, ( u11,11wtnm ,,J M,t ,i, l,11
11826	11826	tr111 , 7 Ma" (,.,._ CJuarttrly '-n 1 I IQ221 al 1~7 22 HOUSE -No. 3720 fMarch
11827	11827	the House firsl asserted its jurisdiction See Dinan, Greenwood. For
11828	11828	example, the Dinan case considered whether a three-judge panel could
11829	11829	act independently, while the House was in session, to find facts indi
11830	11830	cating that an elected representative had engaged in corrupt election
11831	11831	practtces, and whether the panel could report and recommend those
11832	11832	findings to the House for tts action. See 223 Mass. at 517-18. The
11833	11833	court said that such acllvity would violate the House's constitutional
11834	11834	sovereignty to make an independent judgment of the election Rep.
11835	11835	Swig. See 1d. See also Roudebush v. Harrke, 405 U.S. 15 ( 1972)
11836	11836	(under federal provisions similar to art. 10, the U.S. Senate retains the
11837	11837	ability to make a final. independent judgment as to the election of one
11838	11838	of its members). There is no such concern 111 this case. Here, Judge
11839	11839	Connon 's investigation of facts and his decision ordering a new elec
11840	11840	llon were completed and made public before the House organized and
11841	11841	asserted any jurisdiction. As the majority admits in its report, the
11842	11842	House first asserted its jurisdiction when it convened on January I.
11843	11843	2003 and appointed a special committee to review the returns of the
11844	11844	election. See Majority Report at 11 (House asserted its JUnsdict1on by
11845	11845	convening a special committee and holding hearings). That was a full
11846	11846	2 days after the coun's order was issued.
11847	11847	For the ,a,ne reasons, there is no issue of improper delega11on or
11848	11848	intrnsion here The House did not become qualified to judge the returns
11849	11849	of the November. 2002 elec11on until January I. 2003, at the earliest. The
11850	11850	182nd Biennial
11851	11851	Session of the Legislature had no authority to judge the
11852	11852	returns
11853	11853	of that contest because it affected the succeeding General Court.
11854	11854	See e.g. To\'11 of Milton ,,. Co11111101rn•ealth. 416 Mai;s. 471, 474 ( 1993)
11855	11855	(one !->ession of the General Court cannot bind successive sessions 10
11856	11856	make an appropriation or dictate how constitucionally permissible leg
11857	11857	islative
11858	11858	processes should work). Thus, there could not conceivably be
11859	11859	any delegation of power until the J 83rd Biennial Session of the General
11860	11860	Court was seated, which did not happen until two days after the cou11
11861	11861	issued ili. final judgment. See also Gree11ll'ood. 282 Mass. at 80 (House
11862	11862	first
11863	11863	becomes cloaked with jurisdiction and is put on notice to exercise
11864	11864	its
11865	11865	power at the time certificates of election are presented Lo the House);
11866	11866	Mass. Gen. Laws c. 3 § I.
11867	11867	Wheatley's attorneys argue against the House having jurisdiction
11868	11868	b) cn111g a later const1tut10nal amendment, amendment IO l, which
11869	11869	they say '>Upercedes art. 10. Amendment IOI states. in relevant part,
11870	11870	"the manner of call mg and conducting the elections for the choice of 2003] HOUSE -No. 3720 23
11871	11871	representatives, and of ascertaining their elec tion, sha ll be prescribed
11872	11872	by law.'' Wheatl ey's attorneys claim the irregularities found by the court
11873	11873	violated sta
11874	11874	te election laws, which is a problem that the Superior Court
11875	11875	Department
11876	11876	of the Trial Court has jurisdiction to remedy. See Mass. Gen.
11877	11877	Laws c 56 § 59 ('The supreme judicial court and the sup erior court
11878	11878	department of the tnal court shall have Jurisdiction
11879	11879	of civil action:. to
11880	11880	enforce the provisions
11881	11881	of chapters fifty to fifty-s ix inclusive, and may
11882	11882	award relief formerly available in equity or by mandamus . '').
11883	11883	Patrick, by and through
11884	11884	his counsel, has failed to o ffer any con
11885	11885	vincing authority to resolve what he has admitted is an apparent
11886	11886	"con
11887	11887	flict" between art.
11888	11888	IO and amendment IO I of the Constitution. See
11889	11889	Hearing Tran script at 46. His only argument is that the Hou se has a
11890	11890	responsibility to decide which provision controls. See id. However,
11891	11891	hundreds
11892	11892	of years of American constitutional law disagree with that
11893	11893	position and speak in favor of vesting jurisdiction within the courts.
11894	11894	See e.g. Marburv v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 ( 1803) ("It is emphatically
11895	11895	the province and duty of the judicial department 10 say what the law
11896	11896	is''). Wheatley's attorneys, on the other hand. have offered the m
11897	11897	ore
11898	11898	convincing and plausible analysis that art. IO gives the House power
11899	11899	to decide questions over the qualification of its members in circum
11900	11900	stances
11901	11901	of a valid election, while the power to rule on issues con
11902	11902	cerning the election proce ss itself (i.e. to decide matters relating to
11903	11903	invalid elections) are properly re
11904	11904	served for the courts as a matter of
11905	11905	constitutional and statutory law.
11906	11906	The net result
11907	11907	of all of those cases and constitutional pr ovisions
11908	11908	c
11909	11909	ited by counsel seem c; to be as follows. If the special commillee were
11910	11910	to recommend that the Hou i.e do nothing further, and thereby tacitly
11911	11911	ratify the Superior
11912	11912	Court's Order for a new election, then the issue of
11913	11913	the House's jurisdiction would be moot. However, if the special com
11914	11914	mntee recommends that the Hou~e take any ac tion connicting with
11915	11915	the court's judgment, then the question of the IIouse·., juri'>diction has
11916	11916	no clear an<;wer and appears Lo be an issue of fir'>t 1mpres.,ion ripe for
11917	11917	consideration by the Supreme Judicial Court
11918	11918	Patrick
11919	11919	by and through h1"> counsel, admitt ed al hearing 1hat 1he
11920	11920	consideration of this que<,tion 1s a "solemn occas10n" and not a "pol it
11921	11921	1cal question". See Hearing Transcnpl at 45. Those are normally suf11
11922	11922	c1ent ground<, for the Supreme Judicial Court to give advice to the
11923	11923	House a<. to legal que'>tion-. concern ing its pn.!1.,ent dutie'>. A'> \latt:d
11924	11924	recently by the Court. 24 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
11925	11925	The Massachusetti. Constitution requires the Justices of the
11926	11926	Supreme
11927	11927	Judicial Court to give opinions to the Legislature,
11928	11928	Governor.
11929	11929	or Executive Council "upon important questions of
11930	11930	law. and upon solemn occasions." Part 1-1. c. 3, art. 2. of the
11931	11931	Massachusetts
11932	11932	Constitution, as amended by art. 85 of the
11933	11933	Amendments.
11934	11934	A solemn occasion exists when the Governor or
11935	11935	either branch
11936	11936	of the Legislature, having some acuon in view.
11937	11937	has serious doubts as to the power and authority 10 take such
11938	11938	action, under the Constitution,
11939	11939	or under existing statutes. The
11940	11940	Justices have construed this provision to mean that opinions are
11941	11941	required "only respecting pending matters in order 1ha1 assis•
11942	11942	tance may be gained
11943	11943	in the performance of a present duty.''
11944	11944	Ansll'er of the Justices to the Senate, SJC-08917 (December 20.
11945	11945	2002)
11946	11946	(internal citations omitted)
11947	11947	The House should 1101 take action contrary to the court's order
11948	11948	without first certifying the important and precedent-setting question
11949	11949	of its jurisdiction to the Supreme Judicial Court for its review. The
11950	11950	special committee's report should include such a recommendation.
11951	11951	A. THE HOUSE'S DECISION TO SEAT REP. PATRICK AS A
11952	11952	"HOLDOVE R" REPRESENTATIVE UNDER ARTICLE 64
11953	11953	OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS APPROPRIATE BUT IS
11954	11954	WITHOUT WEIGHT AS TO A DECISION ON THE
11955	11955	MERITS OF THIS CASE.
11956	11956	Under the Constitution. representatives serve a term that expires on
11957	11957	"the first Wednesday of January in the third year following their elec
11958	11958	tion and until their successors are chosen and qualified." Const.
11959	11959	amend. art. 64 § I (as amended) (emphasis added). Thus. where there
11960	11960	is a
11961	11961	failure to elect a representative in a district, the incumbent will
11962	11962	remain in office as a "hold-over" until a successor may be chosen and
11963	11963	qualified by the House. The policy behind this provision of the Con
11964	11964	stitution 1s to allow the people of the district to continue to be repre
11965	11965	sented in the General Court, notwithstanding a failure to elect a
11966	11966	successor.
11967	11967	The House's decision to seat Patrick according to that provision
11968	11968	was appropriate and consistent with precedent. In 1965, for example,
11969	11969	the House permiued Edward S. Morrow of Haverhill to be seated as a
11970	11970	hold-over under Art. 64 until a recount of election returns could be
11971	11971	completed. See 1965 House Journal at 9-11, 388-389. While he was a
11972	11972	hold-over representative, Morrow was allowed to participate in 2003] HOUSE -No. 3720 25
11973	11973	debates and to vote in roll calls. In April of that year. Aaron I. Shin
11974	11974	burg of Haverhill was permitted to assume the seat Instead of Morrow
11975	11975	because he was determined to have won the election by
11976	11976	12 votes. See
11977	11977	ifi..at 1312-1315.
11978	11978	Indeed, the fact that Patrick was and remains 'leated as a hold-over
11979	11979	representative resolves two important concerns related to the
11980	11980	se pro
11981	11981	ceedings. First. the citizens
11982	11982	of the 3rd Barnstable District may rest
11983	11983	assured that they wi
11984	11984	11 have constant representation in the General
11985	11985	Court, despite this contest. Second, the busine ss of the House will not
11986	11986	be delayed or distracted while this matter is resolved. because there is
11987	11987	no gap in membership.
11988	11988	However, other than those factors. the decision to seat Patrick as a
11989	11989	hold-over representative is insufficient and is without weight to the
11990	11990	consideration of this present case. Patrick·s auorney admitted as much
11991	11991	during the hearing. See Hearing Transcript at 62. Patrick ·s hold-over
11992	11992	status does not confer any advantage to him vis a vis Wheatley, and
11993	11993	does not serve as any ratification of the results of the recount. There
11994	11994	fore, the House's decision according to art. 64 should not factor 111to
11995	11995	this committee's report, except as indicated above.
11996	11996	B. A NEW E LECTION IS REQU IRED BECAUSE WHEATLEY
11997	11997	SUSTAI
11998	11998	NED HIS BU RDEN TO PROVE IRREGULARITIES
11999	11999	AND STATUTORY VIOLATIO NS CASTING THE ELECTION
12000	12000	INTO DOUBT.
12001	12001	1. It Is Undis puted That At L east 14 Ballots Are Qu estionable.
12002	12002	Twenty-one ballots are at issue in this case. See exhs. 1-21. Eight of
12003	12003	the 21 ballots were cast by absentee voters. See cxhs. 1-4, 18-21. One
12004	12004	of those ballots (from Mashpee) could not be found; however, the par
12005	12005	ties stipulated that it was cast by a 3rd Barnstable District absentee
12006	12006	voter and that 1t improperly li<;ted the 5th Barnstable District race. fu
12007	12007	exh. 21 The remaining 13 ballots were cast at the polb 111 Bourne
12008	12008	precinct 5. They failed to list the 3rd Barnstable D1<,trict race and were
12009	12009	not disputed by Patrick at trial. See exhs. 5-17; trial trans at 72. four
12010	12010	of those ballots were counted as blanks because they did not manifr:st
12011	12011	any vote for representative. $.ff. exhs. 5, 9. I 0. I 1 The remaining 9
12012	12012	ballot,; appeared to be proper nn thl!ir facl!, because they conta111cd
12013	12013	votes for state repre-.cntaLJve llowcvcr, bccaw,c they listed the wrong 26 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
12014	12014	candidates and were intended for distribution in another precinct, they
12015	12015	too were counted as blanh. See exhs. 6-8, 11.12, 14-17
12016	12016	In light
12017	12017	of the evidence, this committee's determination of the pre
12018	12018	sent
12019	12019	controversy must begin with the conclusion -which is not dis
12020	12020	puted by the parties -that 14 voters ( 13 who voted in Bourne
12021	12021	precinct 5, I who voted in Mashpee) were improperly excluded from
12022	12022	the electoral process by reason of irregularities and/or violations of
12023	12023	law. The apparent margin of victory after the recount was only 17
12024	12024	votes. Therefore, 1f the evidence presented by Wheatley convincingly
12025	12025	demonstrates 1rregulant1es or violations of law as to 3 or more of the
12026	12026	remaining 7 absentee ballots, the number of irregularities will equal or
12027	12027	exceed the apparent margin of victory, casting the result of the elec
12028	12028	tion into
12029	12029	doubt and requiring that a new election be held.
12030	12030	2. Wheatley Has Proved That The Absentee Ballots From Fal
12031	12031	mouth And Bourne Were Cast By 3rd Barnstable District Voters.
12032	12032	Patrick 1s incorrect in his assertion that Wheatley has failed to
12033	12033	prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the contested absentee
12034	12034	ballots from Bourne and Falmouth were cast by voters from the 3rd
12035	12035	Barnstable District Wheatley's claims do not rest on mere "naked sta
12036	12036	tistical
12037	12037	evidence", as is alleged by Patrick. Instead, there is credible,
12038	12038	admissible evidence that the 6 absentee ballots from Bourne and Fal
12039	12039	mouth were cast by voters qualified to vote for Patrick or Wheatley.
12040	12040	For that reason, those 6 absentee ballots should be added 10 the total
12041	12041	numb
12042	12042	er of questionable ballots supporting a new election in this
12043	12043	matter.
12044	12044	bringing the total to 20 votes.
12045	12045	Evidence that the 3 absentee ballots from Falmouth were cast by
12046	12046	3rd District voters is apparent on the face of the ballots themselves.
12047	12047	Each ballot has a handwritten notation in its upper-right -hand corner
12048	12048	stating the precinct from which it originated and the block of ballots
12049	12049	within that precinct from
12050	12050	which it was taken. See exhs. 2-4. Looking
12051	12051	at
12052	12052	those notations, it is apparent that two of the ballots were cast in
12053	12053	precinct 9, and the third was cast in precinct 8. See id. Both precincts
12054	12054	are in the 3rd Barnstable District. See Chapler 125 of the Acts of
12055	12055	200 I; G.L. c. 57 § 4. It may be inferred that those notations are the
12056	12056	result
12057	12057	of a member of the board of registrars, at the recount, observing
12058	12058	and cerli fying the origination of the ballots being protested by the
12059	12059	candidates. See Mass. Gen. Laws c. 54 § 135. Significantly, those 2003] HOUSE -No. 3720 27
12060	12060	markings are the only way to determine, after the ballots were cast,
12061	12061	the precinct in which the absentee ballots should have been cast. The
12062	12062	ballots were irrevocably
12063	12063	separated from their envelopes on election
12064	12064	day, as they should have been. See G.L. c. 54 § 95 (absentee ballots
12065	12065	separated from envelopes and deposited
12066	12066	in ballot box on election day;
12067	12067	envelopes retained wtrh ballots ca.st
12068	12068	in election but not reunited with
12069	12069	particular ballots).
12070	12070	6
12071	12071	Patrick has not brought forward any evidence to
12072	12072	contest the source or validity of those markings, which i.s his burden.
12073	12073	and he agreed to the admi~s,on of the ballots themselves at trial 7 The
12074	12074	only logical conclusion 1s that the ballots were cast by 3rd Barnstable
12075	12075	District voters.
12076	12076	Similar markings are found on the absentee ballots from Bourne.
12077	12077	See exhs. 18-20. However, as to those ballots. there is even stronger
12078	12078	evidence that they were cast by 3rd Barnstable District voters. The
12079	12079	absentee
12080	12080	ballots are substantially the same as the regular ballots
12081	12081	which, indisputably, are known 10 have been cast in Bourne precinct 5.
12082	12082	See exhs 6-8, 11, 12, 14-17. Both sets of ballots (regular and
12083	12083	absentee) purport on their face to be from Bourne precincts 1-3, and
12084	12084	hst the 2nd Plymouth Di.strict race for state representative. Both
12085	12085	groups
12086	12086	of ballots contain votes for a candidate for state representative,
12087	12087	but the candidate of choice was neither Patrick nor Wheatley, because
12088	12088	their names were not listed on the ballots.8 Yet, each of the ballots
12089	12089	contains an endorsement by the Town Clerk, Linda Marzelli, stating that
12090	12090	the ballots were "called as a blank" and "reaffirmed as a blank by Regis
12091	12091	trars". Thus. there is
12092	12092	evidence that two sets of election officials in
12093	12093	Bourne reviewed the ballots and made no distinction between the irreg
12094	12094	ular absentee ballots and those cast nonnally in Bourne precinct 5. The
12095	12095	pames agree that the regular ballots were handed out to voters improp
12096	12096	erly at Bourne precinct 5, and do not dispute that they therefore were
12097	12097	improperly counted as blanks, even though they contained vote~.
12098	12098	Where there
12099	12099	i'> evidence of two sub,;tantially similar sets of circum
12100	12100	ance~. evidence a<. to one <,et of circumstances may be admitted 10
12101	12101	6
12102	12102	Soadvc:r\C
12103	12103	mfcrcnu;: ,honld he Jr;1wn from Whc;11lc)•! ull~~e,I l,ulute .. to 1n,pcc1 ,tb¼"ntcc h.,Uu1 cn,ch.,pc, ,it
12104	12104	lhc rccoun1, becJu~ ~ cn"'elo~, .1lrc,1d) h,1d hcc:.n '-C'paMtcd from 1hc ;1b,c-ntcc tMllnt~ on clcl·Unn mgh1 ,tnJ
12105	12105	lhu ,my rch.11ed e-.·1dem:e ,uppumng the connc,uon between 1h1.· c-nvdo~, .inti 1hc hallnt, w,1-, lc,,1 lutt"\· c-1 fu
12106	12106	i: g Lmcos un Ia·ulrr1tc-61h ~d at~~ JO hc;uh:y !iihould nnt he prcJudK&:d h> 1ho\C m:mrto,,1.m'-'l°'
12107	12107	7
12108	12108	The only cvJdcntc ulfcrcd on rht· pouu hy P.nnc.k 1, 1hc np1mon lt·,1ummy of Mr Kou1oup;in whn wa, nnl
12109	12109	properly qu,1hficd ,1 ,m c,pcrl ,ti 1n,1I .mJ h.uJ 110 knowk<ll!e .1, 1n 1hc .u:1u;1I "otm;~ ol the I ;1lmuu1h h,1lloh
12110	12110	lli S1,:n1ficantly, jio,,c-i,f 1hc: rci;uli.u-h,11lo1, ,ind
12111	12111	;,II 1hrcc o.1b,cU11!c halh.Jh com;unl'<l "ore, for 1hc Hcpohlu:;rn ,·,1mJ1
12112	12112	d:ttc in lhc 2ml Pl)·moulh Dl n<.:I rul:c Su,an W11h;nn, (i1tlurd 28 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
12113	12113	prove conditions as to the olher set. See Carter v. Yardlev. 319 Mass.
12114	12114	92,
12115	12115	94 (1946) (evidence that other users of defendant's perfume suf
12116	12116	fered
12117	12117	skin irritati on after applying product admitted to sh ow proba
12118	12118	bili
12119	12119	ty that plaintiff's injury was caused by perfume). Here, especially
12120	12120	because
12121	12121	there is no other evidence upon which either party could rely
12122	12122	to prove the actual source of the absentee ballots, the similarity
12123	12123	between
12124	12124	the absentee and normal ballots from appropriate precincts in
12125	12125	Bourne compels the conclusion that those vot es were case by voters in
12126	12126	the
12127	12127	3rd Barnstable District. See id.
12128	12128	3. Wheatley's Burden is Only to Prove a Doubtful Result.
12129	12129	Given the evidence concerning the absentee ballots, it is apparent
12130	12130	that at least 17 and p
12131	12131	erhaps as many as 20 ballots are questionable. If
12132	12132	so, a n
12133	12133	ew election is required. It is important to note that Wheatley 's
12134	12134	burden of proof herein is only to raise a question as to the outcome of
12135	12135	the election that is sufficient to set the election aside and order a new
12136	12136	vot
12137	12137	e. See e.g. McCavitt, 385 Mass. at 850. The majority contends that
12138	12138	in a
12139	12139	prior case, Chmura v. Mullins, a single justice of the SJC decided
12140	12140	not
12141	12141	to order a n ew election in a state representative race, despite irreg
12142	12142	ulariti
12143	12143	es similar to those found here. The majority contends that the
12144	12144	single
12145	12145	justice's decision was based on an other case McRobbie v. Reg•
12146	12146	istrars
12147	12147	of Voters oflpswich, 322 Mass. 530, 533 ( 1948), which required a
12148	12148	showing that illegal votes
12149	12149	changed the result of the election, not just
12150	12150	that illegal votes were received. However, what the majority fails to
12151	12151	acknowledge is that McRobbie was overruled by McCavill v. Regis•
12152	12152	trars
12153	12153	of Voters o( Brockton, 385 Mass. 833, 850 ( 1982), and that the
12154	12154	showing required of Wheatley and other plaintiffs therefore was
12155	12155	changed. By showing that the apparent margin of victory has been
12156	12156	eclipsed by 17 or m ore instances of irregularities and violations of
12157	12157	statute, Wheatley h as sustained his burden. A new election is the only
12158	12158	way to remedy those errors
12159	12159	and to manifest the true intent of the voters.
12160	12160	C. THE COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT BASE ITS DECISION
12161	12161	ON
12162	12162	THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES BECAUSE THAT DOC
12163	12163	TRINE IS UNAVAILABLE TO PATRICK IN THIS CASE.
12164	12164	Patrick has argued that Wheatley's claims are barred by the doc
12165	12165	trine
12166	12166	of !aches because he waited until December 18, 2002 to file a
12167	12167	complaint within the Superior Court. However, that arg ument fails 2003] HOUSE -No. 3720 29
12168	12168	because the doctrine of (aches is inapplicable to the <;tatutory claims
12169	12169	that
12170	12170	served as the basis for the Court'<; favorable decision. As
12171	12171	explained
12172	12172	in Srebmck \'. Lo-Law Transit Management. Inc., 29 Ma!.l-.
12173	12173	App. Ct. 45; 557 NE2d 8 I ( I 990):
12174	12174	A judge may find as a fact that )aches exists if there has
12175	12175	been unjustified. unreasonable. and pnc:1ud1ctal delay in raising
12176	12176	a claim. Laches is available, if affirmatively pleaded. as a
12177	12177	defense to a claim that is equitable in nature. It is not generally
12178	12178	available as a defense to a legal c laim As long as there is no
12179	12179	statute of limitations problem. unreasonable delay in pressing a
12180	12180	legal c
12181	12181	laim does nOI. as a matter of <;ubstanuve la\, constitute
12182	12182	!aches. ( /11ternal cirarions omitted).
12183	12183	Here, there is no contention that Wheatley missed any <:tatute of
12184	12184	limitations relating to his election law claim<;, which are statutory and
12185	12185	therefore legal
12186	12186	in nature. Also, it is questionable whether Whealiey's
12187	12187	claim was ripe before December 18, 2002 because the statutory viola
12188	12188	tions he alleged had not yet caused him damage; a certification of the
12189	12189	election results had
12190	12190	yet to be made.9 In any event, any delay by
12191	12191	Wheatley in filing hts Complaint was mere days in duration and there
12192	12192	fore cannot be said to have resulted in any prejudice. As a result. the
12193	12193	comm1ttee should ignore Patrick's )aches argument and should not
12194	12194	factor It into its analysis of thi<; matter.
12195	12195	D. THE QUESTION OF WHE THER PATRICK WAS D EEMED
12196	12196	A "SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE" IS OF NO CO NSE
12197	12197	QUENCE TO THE HOUSE'S JURISDICTION IN THIS
12198	12198	MATTER.
12199	12199	Patrick's attorneys insist Lhat Palrick was a "successful candidate'·
12200	12200	as of December 18, 2002 and that the courts therefore forfeited juris
12201	12201	diction
12202	12202	over this matter. However, that argument should be disre
12203	12203	garded. First, the assertion that Patrick was a "successful candidate"
12204	12204	assumes that there was a valid election, which is the very propo sition
12205	12205	that Wheatley disputes. Second. there is not any language in art. I 0
12206	12206	that relates to "succesc;ful candidates" and the llousc's power with
12207	12207	respect to
12208	12208	them Third, the certificate that was issued lo Patrick
12209	12209	specifically
12210	12210	contemplates that factors might develop that would
12211	12211	1th \hould be noted ih;u \.'he:,rlc-y pursued 1l1e nr,1 .1r,pmp11Jtc ,tt.·p t>t rc4ut,t111t lt reu111111 1n Iha m,1lll"r 1111
12212	12212	Nnvcmbcr 13 2002. lnnr-llclore ht: pcullnht.'J 1he Cnurt for rd1cJ JO<l c111t• tl.1)' hclort· Patuel tc-t.jue,1cd .t
12213	12213	recount 30 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
12214	12214	adversely affect his certification, as it states only that he "appears" to
12215	12215	be elected. Significantly, that determination was made before anyone
12216	12216	(either the Court
12217	12217	or the House) had an opportunity to investigate the
12218	12218	circumstances surrounding the election.
12219	12219	II. IF THE HOUSE ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR
12220	12220	JUDGING THIS ELECTION, IT MUST EXERCISE THAT
12221	12221	POWER RESPONSIBLY AND CONSISTEN1 WITH PRIN
12222	12222	CIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POPULAR
12223	12223	ACCOUNTABILITY.
12224	12224	Assuming arguendo that the House has authority to decide this
12225	12225	matter and that
12226	12226	it asserts its jurisdic11on, the House 1s compelled to
12227	12227	reach the same conclusion as the Court; that is to say, the House must
12228	12228	ord
12229	12229	er that a new election be held forthwith between Patrick and
12230	12230	Wheatley Any result other than the ordering of a new election is
12231	12231	impossible because the House's powers, though potentially very
12232	12232	broad, are not without limits First, the House cannot take any action
12233	12233	that otherwise offends the Constitution. See Const. Pt. I c. I § I art. 4.
12234	12234	Second, the activities
12235	12235	of the House with respect to elections custom
12236	12236	arily have been governed by the rule
12237	12237	of law. See 6 Op.Atty.Gen. 358
12238	12238	( 1922). Third. and perhaps most importantly, the House is accountable
12239	12239	to the people for the actions that
12240	12240	it undertakes. All of these factors
12241	12241	weigh heavily
12242	12242	in favor of a new vote.
12243	12243	A. THE HOUSE CANNOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION
12244	12244	BY SEATING A REPRESENTATIVE WHO WAS NOT
12245	12245	ELECTED POPULARLY.
12246	12246	Notwithstanding any issue.'. of jurisdiction, 1t would be unconstitu
12247	12247	tional for the House to ignore the
12248	12248	Coun·s order for a new election and
12249	12249	seat Patnd. as a full-term representative, despite election irregulari
12250	12250	ties and failures, because the House does not have authority to divest
12251	12251	the citizens
12252	12252	of the Commonwealth of their right 10 elect their own rep
12253	12253	resentatives popularly
12254	12254	The Massachusetts Constitution is replete with provisions that
12255	12255	solidly preserve the rights
12256	12256	of citizens to elect their own governm ent
12257	12257	officials. See Const., Declararion
12258	12258	of rlze Righrs of /11/iabitants of the
12259	12259	Com1110111t"ealth at An. 9 ("All elections ought to be free; and all the
12260	12260	inhabitants of thi~ Commonweallh. having such qualifications as the) 2003) HOUSE -No. 3720 31
12261	12261	shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to
12262	12262	elect officers .. "). Legislative power 1s originally invested in the
12263	12263	people, not the legislature. See id. at Art 5 ("All power residing ong1-
12264	12264	nally in the people. and betng derived from them, the several magis
12265	12265	trates and officers of government. vested with authority, whether
12266	12266	leg1slat1ve, executive or Judicial, are their c;ubst1tutes and agents, and
12267	12267	are at all times accountable to them ... "). Indeed, popular represema
12268	12268	uon is the very basis for the formation of the House. See pt. I, c. I. § 3,
12269	12269	an. I ("'There shall be. in this Commonwealth. a representation of the
12270	12270	people, el ected. and founded upon the principle of equality.") More
12271	12271	over, the Constitution specifically mandates that "every member of
12272	12272	the House of Representatives shall be chosen by written vote ... " See
12273	12273	Const. pt. 2, c. I. § 3. art. 3.
12274	12274	To the extent that the House might take 11 upon itself to seat Patrick
12275	12275	without obtaining an accurate sense of the electorate as to their choice
12276	12276	of representation, it would impermissibly wrest the power of election
12277	12277	from the people and thereby violate the Constitution. It is axiomatic
12278	12278	that no action taken by the House can violate the Constitution. See
12279	12279	Const Pt. I c. I § I art. 4 ("full power and authority are hereby given
12280	12280	and granted to the general court, from time to time, to make, ordain
12281	12281	and establish, all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws,
12282	12282	statutes, and ordinances; so as the same be not repugnam or contrary
12283	12283	10 this constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of
12284	12284	the Commonwealth, and for the government and ordering thereof . . ").
12285	12285	Even the House·s authorny to Judge elections 1s subject to overriding
12286	12286	principles of the Constitution. See Ooi11io11 of the Justices to the
12287	12287	Senate, 375 Mass. 795, 810 (1978) (legislative authority to regulate
12288	12288	the proces!'> of elections "whether exercised by the General Court or
12289	12289	by the people directly. must be exercised consistently with the protec
12290	12290	tions of Art. 9 of the Massachusetl', Declaration of Rights ... ").
12291	12291	Thus, whatever the acuon that the House might take, 1L must act
12292	12292	consistently with the people's right to vote, which will be undcrm111cd
12293	12293	if the House does anything short of ordering that a new election he
12294	12294	held. The majority'<; rccommcndauon should not be followed.
12295	12295	B. IN ALL CASES, THE HOUSE MUST FOLLOW THE RULE
12296	12296	OF LAW.
12297	12297	No matter how broad the Ilouse' powers are, the Hou~e ordinarily
12298	12298	is governed by the rule of law Ill all of lls undertakings. 1nclu<l111g th\.'. 32 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
12299	12299	judging of the election and qualification of its members.
12300	12300	1
12301	12301	0 The
12302	12302	Attorney General has consistently stated that principle whenever he
12303	12303	has interpreted the House's powers to judge elections under art. I 0. as
12304	12304	follows:
12305	12305	The decision of the House as to the validity of an electton to the
12306	12306	H
12307	12307	ouse cannot be reviewed by any other tribunal. Indeed, the Legisla
12308	12308	ture cannot constitutionally delegate to the judiciary department
12309	12309	power to hear and determine the question. Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass.
12310	12310	5 16. But while the power of the House over the subject is absolute,
12311	12311	it may be proper to add that the House of Representatives has
12312	12312	been accustomed
12313	12313	in such cases to follow the rules of law." 6 Op.
12314	12314	Atty. Gen. 214, 215. 358, 359-60 (1922): I Op. Atty. Gen. 3, 8
12315	12315	(1922) (emphasis added).
12316	12316	Support for the proposition 1s also founded in the fact that the
12317	12317	House's power to judge the qualification of its members may be exer
12318	12318	cised not only when a member is seated, but also when a member is to
12319	12319	be removed from office. Undoubtedly, there are strict procedures that
12320	12320	must be followed regarding the expulsion of a member of the House.
12321	12321	Since the same Constitutional provisions guide both circumstances,
12322	12322	the procedures that the House might establish to determine if a new
12323	12323	election should be held should be every bit as formal and extensive as
12324	12324	those that
12325	12325	would be used in removing a member from office. Finally,
12326	12326	the standards developed by the House to control its consideration of
12327	12327	this matter should serve as good precedent for future occasions.
12328	12328	l. The Rule of Law Compels the House and Court to the Same
12329	12329	Conclusion.
12330	12330	Under Massachusetts law, a new election must be held whenever
12331	12331	there are irregularities or statutory violations that place the result of
12332	12332	the election in doubt. See McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters of
12333	12333	Brockton, 385 Mass. 833, 850 ( 1982) (" 'Whenever the irregularities
12334	12334	or illegality of [an I election is such that the result of the election
12335	12335	would be placed in doubt, then the election must be set aside and the
12336	12336	judge must order a new election"). t I The irregularities and violations
12337	12337	IO Patrick·, auomcy udm111cd m hcanng 1hal lht Hoo'<, ordinarily nlll\l follow 1hc rule of h,w und 1ha1 the "rule
12338	12338	of law" may be 1nterpre1ed 10 ITN!an M,1', Gen L11w, c 50-57 Sec He,tnng Tran,cnpl ill 6-1-67
12339	12339	11
12340	12340	Pa1nck dJ1ungu"hc' the M.J.:J:JJ.uu. """'• und clmm, that Wheatley ha, fmlcd 10 .sau,fy his burden of proof on
12341	12341	lhe basi~ that he ha~ shown no more than thm "mathemaUC31 chances somcwh:11 favor t.hc propo\1Uon .. 1hat 1hc 2003]
12342	12342	H
12343	12343	OUSE -No. 3720 33
12344	12344	must be proved to "v1ola1e the subi-;tantive end for which the elecuon
12345	12345	was held".
12346	12346	See Citi;-ens (or a Referendum Vote v. Cit of Worcester,
12347	12347	375 Mass. 218, 219 ( 1978), quoting Swift v. Registrars of Voters of
12348	12348	Ou inn, 281 Mass. 271, 276, 278 ( 1932) Once such v1olat1ons are
12349	12349	found, the calling
12350	12350	of a new election 1s compulsorv See R1;-;-o 1·. Board
12351	12351	of Elecrion Commi. H1011ers. 403 Mass 20. 21 ( 1988) ("if there i-; a
12352	12352	real1st1c possibihty that the statuwry violauon mtluenced the outcome
12353	12353	of the election. the election cannot stand").
12354	12354	See al:,o Memorandum of
12355	12355	Decision at 3-5. The paramount concern is that of resolving disputes
12356	12356	in favor of voters. See McC<ll'ltt, 385 Mass. at 837.
12357	12357	In the Wheatley case, the Supenor Court considered the evidence
12358	12358	before it
12359	12359	and found that there were not less than three statutory viola
12360	12360	tions that occurred and which required a new election.
12361	12361	Id. First. the
12362	12362	court found a violation
12363	12363	of G.L. c. 54 § 41, which requires that ballots
12364	12364	contain the names
12365	12365	of the candidates for election.
12366	12366	1
12367	12367	2 Second. the Court
12368	12368	found that the wwn clerks in the several towns did not deliver proper
12369	12369	ballots before the
12370	12370	opening of the pol(<;, as required by G.L. c. 54,
12371	12371	§ 60.
12372	12372	13
12373	12373	Third, the Court found that the delay!> in vottng and lack of
12374	12374	ballots violated laws requmng that the polls remain open for a m111-
12375	12375	1mum of 13 hours.14
12376	12376	The Court was particularly persuaded that many of the violat1ons
12377	12377	occurred
12378	12378	10 Wheatley·s home town (where he won by a 2-1 margin
12379	12379	over Patrick) and that the delay
12380	12380	in voting happened at a busy time at
12381	12381	the polls. See Memorandum of Decision at 3, 5. The Court also found
12382	12382	that the number
12383	12383	of violations was more than enough 10 realistically
12384	12384	have mfluenced the outcome of the election 1n favor of Wheatl ey. See
12385	12385	1d at 5. On that basis, the Court ordered a new election.
12386	12386	••&hi ah,cnh:c b;illol conw,n,ng 1hc Second PJ
12387	12387	1
12388	12388	mou1h r.1ee w,·rc m,1 h) Third ll.irn,1.1hlr Dl\ln<t vo1cr, 111,11
12389	12389	,tigumcnt 1, flawed for three rca,on., F1r,1 \VhcatJ~)· h,,, dcrnmt\lt,l!cd ,11fh1.1e:111 cv1dt'111.:c lor 1hc Court to
12390	12390	conclude lha1 lhe rc,uh of the cfocuon" ULJl!mb/. 11,e ca,so, un,fnrml, hl'lld 1h,11 ""hcne,cr 1hc irrcgulanl) ur
12391	12391	rllegahl) of the eJet11on ,, ,uch th.11 the rc,uh ol lhc clcc11on v..ould b.: plan;J rn t!u11h1, !hen the clecunn mu,1
12392	12392	be \C!t a,1de •· Sc, McCU ll :\H~ M.1,, at k~O. Sec:ond u would be
12393	12393	1mpo,,1hlt lor Whe.11ky In Jt•lcrnlllll" the
12394	12394	rdcnu1y
12395	12395	of the ilh,cntec voter,. ,mcc 1hr bullot cn"dope, wt"rc 1rrcvoc,1hly i,..cp,1t.tlcJ trc,111 lh~· hi1tlnt, on ch:1,;
12396	12396	tJon m~h• fbcfon: the rccomu 'A,1, rcqucMrd) and hcc;1u,r 11 " 1mpo\,1blc 10 ·"k ~1h-.r11tec voter, ho'A lht'
12397	12397	would ha\ie voted S«..Jd. at 84-8. f1md MJ....CfilJ11 ,u~J.!e,r, lllilr Wheatley·, ( ompl,nnt alum· ,, ,11H11:u-n1 tfl
12398	12398	illlow him 10 chullcngt lhc dc..t1on St~ i.tl H,ICJ 01, 01n,c, the" only lrnt: w.1y to ,l'CCrt,un lhc ,011:r, 1t11t.·u1 ,.,.
12399	12399	re, hold n nc\l.o ck,tmn whtth •'-wha1 the 1 lou~ ,houtd clo hc:rc
12400	12400	12G L '-S4 § JJ it,.,lc.,,_, w rclcv,1111 pan. •·hallo1,; !or 1ht:' u\C 4>f v<ncr, in .11tnll11J;. rrccrni..t pc,lhur pl,1;t" nr town
12401	12401	,h.all corH,un the DJ.flM.:!i. ot .111 ,amhJt1tC"-tluly 111,1111natc:d lor clc:" m,n 1h
12402	12402	10
12403	12403	rL"III "
12404	12404	I~ (j J c 5-1 ~ 60 !-title. in rcle,,,mt
12405	12405	part ''lhc uty or 1111.\11 clerk. l'Jn lhc J;,1} ol ,·,.,cry ,1.1ti: nr 1,,Jty dt·c11on t-·forc
12406	12406	ihc opcnins 1,t 1he putl ... ilu11 tran\mll 10 1he ckcllon nUtccr, ol t..•;1ch pollmr rJ01,..c herein, .,II tl11ng~ men·
12407	12407	uoncJ
12408	12408	111 ahc p1ccc,1tnr M~CIIOfl Y1o h1..:h lmvc-i)t'CII pmvHlt:d 111 1hc: polhn~· pl,1;.c"
12409	12409	1-1 S.a (i I 'i,:J, ~ 6-t fpolh 111.1y he open ,I r;trly .a 1 'i 111111111c hclorc {11)() ,1 m .uul \h,111 ht •prn nnr l,1tc.~r 1h,1n
12410	12410	7 ()() .
12411	12411	1 m 1nd ,tlilll he: \.cpf u~n .n lc~1~1 1 ~ liou,-., 34 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
12412	12412	The majority of the special committee recommends that the House
12413	12413	pay no more than simple lip
12414	12414	service to the rule of law. without fac
12415	12415	toring its weight into recommendations being made to the House. See
12416	12416	Majority Report
12417	12417	at 11. The minority's recommendation is otherwise.
12418	12418	The consequences of following the rule of law are clear: to the extent
12419	12419	that the Superior Court
12420	12420	was guided by the rule of law in finding that
12421	12421	statutory
12422	12422	violations and irregularities compel a new election, the
12423	12423	House must reach the same conclusion by considering the same evi
12424	12424	dence and legal rules.
12425	12425	The special committee must recommend that a
12426	12426	new election be held forthwith.
12427	12427	C. REGARDLESS OF WHAT ACTION THE HOUSE TAKES,
12428	12428	IT MUST MAKE A DECISION THAT IS CONSISTENT
12429	12429	WITH ITS ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PEOPLE.
12430	12430	The Massachusetcs Constitution 1s adamant that, in all cases, the
12431	12431	House of Representatives and the rest of the government must be
12432	12432	accountable to the people. See Const.. D
12433	12433	eclararion of the Righrs of
12434	12434	Inhabitants of rhe Commonwealth at An. 5 ("'All power residing origi
12435	12435	nally
12436	12436	in the people, and being derived from them, the several magis
12437	12437	tra
12438	12438	tes and officers of government, vested with authority. whether
12439	12439	legislative, executive or judicial. are their substitutes a nd agents, and
12440	12440	are
12441	12441	at all times accountable 10 them ... ").
12442	12442	The
12443	12443	Di11an opinion, for its discussion about the power of the House 10
12444	12444	judge its own elections. recognized the accou ntability of the House as a
12445	12445	possible (and perhaps potent) constraint on the House ·s power.
12446	12446	Ai> the
12447	12447	SJC said. "on!; Its sense of self re~pect and duty 10 the whole Common
12448	12448	wealth to purge itself of a member unworthy of his office would impel it
12449	12449	to pa) heed to the [Court's! decree." Di11a11, '.!'23 Mass. at 518.
12450	12450	If this matter 1s acted upon b) the House, principles of account
12451	12451	ability require that the House,
12452	12452	111 its discretion. choose to exerci!>e 11s
12453	12453	powers prudently, respectfully and 111 such a way that reflect~ the will
12454	12454	and intent of the people (as represented b) the electorate). The only
12455	12455	wav for the House to do so 1s to order a new vote along the guidelin ei>
12456	12456	suggested b) the Coun, and to seat the winner of that contest.
12457	12457	D. A NEW VOTE SHOULD BE ORDERED ACCORDING To
12458	12458	GL c. 54 § 141.
12459	12459	Assu1mng that the House assumes JUnsd1c11on, it should order a ne\'.
12460	12460	\'Ole according to Ma-.. .... Gen Laws c. 54 § 141. The provisions of that
12461	12461	statute are
12462	12462	as follows· 2003] HOUSE -No. 3720
12463	12463	Upon a vacancy in the office of representative in the general
12464	12464	coun or upon failure to elect, the speaker of the house of repre
12465	12465	sentatives shall issue precepts 10 the aldermen of each city and
12466	12466	the selectmen of each tuwn comprising the district or any part
12467	12467	thereof, appointing such time as the house of representatives
12468	12468	may order for an election to fill such vacancy; provided, that if
12469	12469	such \acancy occurs <luring a recess between the first an<l
12470	12470	second annual sessions of the same general court. the speaker
12471	12471	may fix the time for an election to fill such vacancy. All such
12472	12472	elections shall be held on a Tuesday. Upon receipt of such pre
12473	12473	cepts, the aldermen or the selectmen shall call an election,
12474	12474	which shall be held in accordance with the precepts.
12475	12475	35
12476	12476	The House should adopt an Order along those lines in this case,
12477	12477	such that a new election will be held between Patrick and Wheatley
12478	12478	forthwith.
12479	12479	The majority argues that the House is powerless to order a new
12480	12480	election
12481	12481	tn the absence of a finding that there 1s a failure to elect. See
12482	12482	MaJority Report at 10. However, the majority's report does not justify
12483	12483	such a finding because, incredibly, it ignores all
12484	12484	of the evidence pre
12485	12485	sented
12486	12486	by the parties ac:; to elec11on trregulariues. The Hou se cannot
12487	12487	make a credible decision
12488	12488	in this matter without considering all of the
12489	12489	evidence and factoring it into
12490	12490	11s judgment, a~ the court did. Having
12491	12491	reviewed such evidence, the minority is convinced that voting irregu
12492	12492	lanties (as found
12493	12493	by the court) clearly con~titute a failure to elect a
12494	12494	representative
12495	12495	tn the 3rd Barnstable D1stric1. As such, the House is
12496	12496	empowered
12497	12497	to order the Speaker to issue precepts for a new election.
12498	12498	Indeed.
12499	12499	given the weight of the evidence, the issuance of such an
12500	12500	order t<; compulsory.
12501	12501	CONCLUSION
12502	12502	Due to palpable irregularities and statutory violations during the
12503	12503	3rd Barnstable District election
12504	12504	proce<.,s, as described above, and for
12505	12505	the
12506	12506	foregoing legal reasons, the Special Commillee on Election<,
12507	12507	should report and recommend that the House either (
12508	12508	I )(a) allow the
12509	12509	ruling by the Superior
12510	12510	Coun to stand, (b) abstain from further action
12511	12511	in thi.., matter and (cl abide hy the determination of the new election
12512	12512	ordered by Judge Connon. or
12513	12513	(2)(a) certify the question of its junsdic
12514	12514	lion to the Supreme Judicial Court and, if jurisdiction 1s found to he
12515	12515	proper (
12516	12516	bJ 1-.,s11e the following order: 36 HOUSE -No. 3720 [March
12517	12517	Ordered, That the Speaker issue a precept giving
12518	12518	notice that a vacancy exists in the membership
12519	12519	of the
12520	12520	House from the 3rd Barnstable District, and appointing
12521	12521	a time for an election to be held
12522	12522	in said district between
12523	12523	Matthew
12524	12524	C. Patrick and Larry F. Wheatley (only) for
12525	12525	the purpose
12526	12526	of filling that vacancy.
12527	12527	Respectfully submitted,
12528	12528	GEORGE N. PETERSON. JR.
12529	12529	Membe,; Special Committee on Elections
12530	12530	House Minority Whip
12531	12531	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
12532	12532	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
12533	12533	The State House, Room 124
12534	12534	Boston, MA 02133
12535	12535	(6 I 7) 722-2 I 00
12536	12536	Dated: March 18, 2003 2003] HOUSE -o. 3720 37
12537	12537	Appendix C
12538	12538	~be <CommonlDcaltb of iflassncl)usetts
12539	12539	In the Year Two Thousand antl Three.
12540	12540	RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO DECLARI G THAT i\1ATTHEW C PATRICK WAS
12541	12541	DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE
12542	12542	TO THE GENERAL COURT
12543	12543	Resolved. That Mauhew C. Patrick of Falmouth was duly
12544	12544	2 elected the Representative to the General Court from the Third
12545	12545	3
12546	12546	Barnstable District in the election held on November 5. 2002, and
12547	12547	4
12548	12548	1hat he is entitled to and is hereby given the seat allocated for that
12549	12549	5 district now occupied by him.
12550	12550	rhl, Uocumcnl lllL Ileen Printed On 100% Hccyclcd Paper. ATTACHMENT D
12551	12551	1084CV04630 Alicea v Southbridge, Registrars
12552	12552	of
12553	12553	Voters et al
12554	12554	• Case Type:
12555	12555	• Administrative Civil Actions
12556	12556	• Case Status:
12557	12557	• Closed
12558	12558	• File Date
12559	12559	• 11/29/2010
12560	12560	• DCM Track:
12561	12561	• X -Accelerated
12562	12562	• Initiating Action:
12563	12563	• Other Administrative Action
12564	12564	• Status Date:
12565	12565	• 12/10/2010
12566	12566	• Case Judge: •I
12567	12567	Next
12568	12568	Event:
12569	12569	All
12570	12570	In
12571	12571	formation Pa
12572	12572	rty
12573	12573	Eve
12574	12574	nt
12575	12575	Docket -Di
12576	12576	spo
12577	12577	s
12578	12578	it
12579	12579	io
12580	12580	~
12581	12581	Party Information Alicea, Geraldo -Plaintiff Ali
12582	12582	as
12583	12583	Town
12584	12584	of
12585	12585	Southbridge, Registrars
12586	12586	of
12587	12587	Voters
12588	12588	-Defendant
12589	12589	A
12590	12590	li
12591	12591	as
12592	12592	Party Attorney
12593	12593	• Attorney
12594	12594	• McDermott, Jr., Esq., William A
12595	12595	•
12596	12596	Bar
12597	12597	Code
12598	12598	• 330820
12599	12599	• Address
12600	12600	• Sullivan
12601	12601	and
12602	12602	McDermott
12603	12603	1988-1990 Centre Street
12604	12604	West
12605	12605	Roxbury,
12606	12606	MA
12607	12607	02132
12608	12608	• Phone Number
12609	12609	• (617)323-0213
12610	12610	Party Attorney
12611	12611	• Attorney
12612	12612	• Caprera, Esq., Robert G
12613	12613	•
12614	12614	Bar
12615	12615	Code
12616	12616	• 073120
12617	12617	• Address
12618	12618	• Caprera and Caprera Law Office
12619	12619	32 Everett
12620	12620	St
12621	12621	Southbridge,
12622	12622	MA
12623	12623	01550
12624	12624	• Phone Number
12625	12625	j
12626	12626	More Pa
12627	12627	rty_l_nf_QJ'111atio
12628	12628	J1 • (508)764-3297
12629	12629	William
12630	12630	F.
12631	12631	Galvin, Secretary Commonwealth
12632	12632	of
12633	12633	Massachusetts
12634	12634	-Defendant
12635	12635	A
12636	12636	li
12637	12637	as
12638	12638	Events Da
12639	12639	te
12640	12640	12/08/2010 02:00
12641	12641	PM
12642	12642	12/08/20
12643	12643	10
12644	12644	02:00 PM
12645	12645	Session CivilC CivilG
12646	12646	Party Attorney
12647	12647	LQcatlcm
12648	12648	!Y.R.!! He
12649	12649	aring
12650	12650	on
12651	12651	Order
12652	12652	of
12653	12653	Notice
12654	12654	Hearing
12655	12655	on
12656	12656	Order
12657	12657	of
12658	12658	Notice
12659	12659	Docket Information Docket
12660	12660	Date
12661	12661	11/29/
12662	12662	2010
12663	12663	11/29/
12664	12664	2010
12665	12665	11/29/
12666	12666	2010
12667	12667	11/29/
12668	12668	2010
12669	12669	12/08/2010
12670	12670	12/09/
12671	12671	2010
12672	12672	12/10/2010 Case Disposition DiSP.OSition
12673	12673	Dismi
12674	12674	ss
12675	12675	ed
12676	12676	Docket
12677	12677	Text
12678	12678	Complaint filed
12679	12679	Origin 1, Type E99, Track X.
12680	12680	Civil action
12681	12681	cover
12682	12682	sheet filed (n/a)
12683	12683	Plaintiff
12684	12684	Geraldo
12685	12685	Alicea's
12686	12686	MOT
12687	12687	ION
12688	12688	for
12689	12689	appo
12690	12690	intment
12691	12691	of
12692	12692	special process
12693	12693	server
12694	12694	D.H.R.
12695	12695	&
12696	12696	Assoc
12697	12697	iates, Inc.-
12698	12698	ALLOWED
12699	12699	(Lauriat,
12700	12700	J)
12701	12701	Dated
12702	12702	11
12703	12703	/29
12704	12704	/10
12705	12705	Motion
12706	12706	of
12707	12707	Peter
12708	12708	J. Durant
12709	12709	to
12710	12710	intervene
12711	12711	w/o
12712	12712	opposition
12713	12713	Motioin
12714	12714	of
12715	12715	Intervening deft. Peter J. Durant for change
12716	12716	of
12717	12717	Venue
12718	12718	ALLOWED
12719	12719	Complaint Dismissed by reason
12720	12720	of
12721	12721	Forum
12722	12722	Non
12723	12723	Conveniers. This
12724	12724	is without prejudi
12725	12725	ce
12726	12726	to
12727	12727	immediate re-filing
12728	12728	in
12729	12729	Worcester Superior
12730	12730	Court. parties
12731	12731	have
12732	12732	agreed to accept service through their counsel
12733	12733	and
12734	12734	to
12735	12735	accept
12736	12736	same
12737	12737	pleadings, re-dated. Findings stated
12738	12738	on
12739	12739	Record
12740	12740	this
12741	12741	day
12742	12742	DISMISSED (McIntyre, J.).dated 12/8/
12743	12743	10
12744	12744	Notice
12745	12745	sent
12746	12746	12/9/10
12747	12747	JUDGMENT
12748	12748	The action is Dismissed without
12749	12749	pre
12750	12750	judice
12751	12751	to
12752	12752	immediate
12753	12753	Re-Filing in Worcester Superior
12754	12754	Court
12755	12755	entered
12756	12756	on
12757	12757	docket
12758	12758	pursuant
12759	12759	to
12760	12760	Mass
12761	12761	R Civ P 58(a) and notice sent to parti
12762	12762	es
12763	12763	pursuant to
12764	12764	Mass
12765	12765	R
12766	12766	Civ
12767	12767	P 77(d)
12768	12768	Da
12769	12769	te
12770	12770	12/10/
12771	12771	2010
12772	12772	Ev~ntJudg
12773	12773	g
12774	12774	C
12775	12775	a_s
12776	12776	_e
12777	12777	Judgg
12778	12778	Result
12779	12779	Not
12780	12780	Held
12781	12781	More
12782	12782	p_artY.
12783	12783	Information
12784	12784	More Pa
12785	12785	rtY.
12786	12786	lnformatiQn
12787	12787	Held
12788	12788	as
12789	12789	Scheduled
12790	12790	File Ref
12791	12791	Nbr
12792	12792	,
12793	12793	2 3 4 5 6
12794	12794	Image Avail. ATTACHMENT E
12795	12795	I 1085CV02624 Alicea v Southb ridge Registrars of-Voters et al
12796	12796	• Case Type:
12797	12797	• Administrative Civil Actions
12798	12798	•
12799	12799	Case Status:
12800	12800	• Closed
12801	12801	• File Date
12802	12802	• 12/10/2010
12803	12803	• DCM Track:
12804	12804	• X -Accelerated
12805	12805	• Initiating Action:
12806	12806	• Other Administrative Action
12807	12807	• Status Date:
12808	12808	• 12/10/2010
12809	12809	•
12810	12810	Case Judge:
12811	12811	•
12812	12812	Next Event:
12813	12813	All Information Party Subsequent Action/Subject Event Docket Disposition 1
12814	12814	Docket lnfonnation
12815	12815	Docket
12816	12816	Date
12817	12817	Docket Text
12818	12818	01/14/2010 Pre-trial memorandum of Deft Secretary of the Commwealth's
12819	12819	(Scanned Image)
12820	12820	12/10/2010 Verified Complaint
12821	12821	& civil action cover sheet filed
12822	12822	12/10/2010 Origin 1, Type E99, Track
12823	12823	X.
12824	12824	12/10/2010 Filing fee paid in the amount of $275.00 including $15.00 surcharge
12825	12825	and $20.00 security fee.
12826	12826	12/10/2010 Plaintiffs Memorandum
12827	12827	of Law in support of Motion for speedy
12828	12828	completion
12829	12829	of Discovery and Trial
12830	12830	12/10/2010 Complaint (P#1)
12831	12831	Short Order of Notice to Issue, returnable on Monday
12832	12832	12/13/2010 at 2:00pm in Courtroom 17. (Richard T. Tucker, Justice).
12833	12833	Notices mailed 12/10/2010
12834	12834	12/13/2010 Peter J Durant's MOTION
12835	12835	to Intervene as a matter of right for
12836	12836	Intervenor Defendant
12837	12837	and counterclaim plaintiff
12838	12838	12/13/201 O Motion to Intervene as a Matter of Right
12839	12839	(Paper#3)
12840	12840	12/13/2010 Motion (P#3) ALLOWED (Richard T. Tucker, Justice) Notices mailed
12841	12841	12/14/2010
12842	12842	12/13/2010 Atty Robert G Caprera's notice
12843	12843	of appearance for Town of Southbridge
12844	12844	Registrars
12845	12845	of Voters filed in court
12846	12846	12/13/201
12847	12847	O Atty Tori T Kim's notice of appearance for William F Galvin Secretary
12848	12848	of the Commonwea l th of MA filed in court
12849	12849	12/13/2010 Atty Frank L McNamara Jr's notice
12850	12850	of appearance for Peter J Durant
12851	12851	filed in court
12852	12852	12/13/2010 SERVICE RETURNED
12853	12853	of Summons and Order of Noitce re: Town of
12854	12854	Southbridge Registrars of Voters(Defendant) 12/13/10 accepted by
12855	12855	deft. counsel Atty. Robert G. Caprera filed in court
12856	12856	12/13/2010 SERVICE RETURNED (order
12857	12857	of notice): Peter J. Durant 12/13/10 (no
12858	12858	service) filed
12859	12859	in court
12860	12860	12/13/2010 SERVICE RETURNED: Summons and Order of Notice re:William F Galvin
12861	12861	Secretary(Defendant) 10/13/10 service
12862	12862	to Assistant Attyoney General
12863	12863	Maryanne Reynolds filed in court
12864	12864	12/31/2010 ANSWER: William
12865	12865	F Galvin Secretary(Defendant)
12866	12866	01/07/2011 ANSWER: Town
12867	12867	of Southbridge Registrars ofVoters(Defendant)
12868	12868	01/07/2011 ANSWER:
12869	12869	of deft. Registrars of voters of the town of Southbridge to
12870	12870	counterclaim of Intervenor deft/counterclaim plff. Peter J. Durant
12871	12871	01/14/2011 (Faxed }Plff's Trial
12872	12872	Brief
12873	12873	01/14/2011 ( Faxed )Pitt's list ofTrial Witnesses
12874	12874	File Ref Image
12875	12875	Nbr. Avail.
12876	12876	2
12877	12877	3
12878	12878	4
12879	12879	5
12880	12880	6
12881	12881	7
12882	12882	8
12883	12883	9
12884	12884	10
12885	12885	11
12886	12886	lmagg
12887	12887	lmagg
12888	12888	lmagg
12889	12889	lmagg
12890	12890	Image
12891	12891	l
12892	12892	magg
12893	12893	lmagg
12894	12894	lmagg
12895	12895	lmagg
12896	12896	lmagg Docket Docket Text
12897	12897	Date
12898	12898	01/14/2011 (Faxed) Plff's Requests for rulings of law and findings of fact
12899	12899	01/14/2011 (Faxed) Plff's Motion in Limine
12900	12900	01/14/2011 Motion in Limine
12901	12901	(Paper #13)
12902	12902	01/14/2011 Pre-trial memorandum
12903	12903	of Deft Secretary of the Commwealth's
12904	12904	01/14/2011 Pre-trial memorandum
12905	12905	of Intervenor/deft and counterclaim plff Peter J
12906	12906	Durant
12907	12907	01/14/2011 Pre-trial memorandum
12908	12908	of Deft Secretary of the Commwealth's
12909	12909	Pre-trial memorandum
12910	12910	of Intervenor/deft and counterclaim plff Peter J Durant
12911	12911	(Scanned Images)
12912	12912	01/14/2011 Deft Town
12913	12913	of Southbridge Registrars ofVoters's MOTION in limine to
12914	12914	to that no Trial counsel shall be allowed to examine any witness
12915	12915	01/14/2011 Witness list
12916	12916	of Deft, Secretary of the Commonwealth
12917	12917	01/14/2011 Request
12918	12918	of Plff for rulings of law and findings of fact filed in court
12919	12919	01/14/2011 Trial brief filed by Town
12920	12920	of Southbridge Registrars of Voters
12921	12921	01/14/2011 ANSWER and Counterclaim: Peter J Durant (Defendant/intervenor)
12922	12922	01/14/2011 COUNTERCLAIM
12923	12923	of Intervenor/Defendant Peter J Durant v Geraldo Alicea
12924	12924	01/14/2011 ANSWER by Geraldo Alicea to COUNTERCLAIM
12925	12925	of Intervenor/Defendant,
12926	12926	Peter J Durant
12927	12927	01/14/2011 Deft
12928	12928	Town of Southbridge Registrars ofVoters's MOTION in limine to to that no Trial counsel shall be allowed to
12929	12929	examine any witness (Paper #14}
12930	12930	Request
12931	12931	of Plff for rulings of law and findings offact filed in court (Paper #14.2)
12932	12932	ANSWER by Geraldo Alicea to COUNTERCLAIM
12933	12933	of Intervenor/Defendant, Peter J Durant (Paper #14.5)
12934	12934	01/18/2011 Agreed-upon list
12935	12935	of trial Exhibits and list of exhibits to be marked
12936	12936	for identification filed in court
12937	12937	01/18/2011 Atty Lauren F Goldberg's notice of appearance for Town of Southbridge
12938	12938	Registrars
12939	12939	of Voters filed in court
12940	12940	01/18/2011 Motion (P#13) ALLOWED (Richard T Tucker, Justice) Notices mailed
12941	12941	1/31/
12942	12942	2011
12943	12943	01/18/2011 Motion (P#14) No action taken, reserved. (Richard T Tucker, Justice)
12944	12944	Notices mailed 1/31/2011
12945	12945	01/28/2011 Post Trial Memorandum
12946	12946	of Law of Deft/Plf in Counterclaim Peter J
12947	12947	Durant
12948	12948	02/01/2011 Court received Plaintiffs Reply Brief to Post-Trial Memorandum
12949	12949	02/01/2011 Plaintiff's MOTION to Request Leave to file a response to post-trial
12950	12950	memorandum
12951	12951	of law filed by intervenor and plaintiff in counterclaim.
12952	12952	02/01/2011 Motion (P#16) Assuming that the attached reply brief in plaintiff's
12953	12953	response, the motion is ALLOWED. (Richard
12954	12954	T. Tucker, Justice).
12955	12955	Notices mailed
12956	12956	2/1/2011
12957	12957	02/01/2011 FINDINGS OF FACT, RULING OF LAW AND ORDER OF JUDGMENT; The election
12958	12958	is a tie vote. Two ballots were not counted and one eligible voter
12959	12959	was not able to vote. Accordingly, I find and declare the election to
12960	12960	be in doubt and ORDER a new election pursuant
12961	12961	to G.L. c. 56, s 59; GL
12962	12962	c.54, s171. (see order) (Richard T Tucker, Justice) entered and
12963	12963	copies mailed 2-1-2011.
12964	12964	02/01/2011 Stipulation
12965	12965	of Facts-see Stipulation
12966	12966	02/01/2011 Stipulation
12967	12967	of Facts (Paper#19)
12968	12968	02/11/2011 Court received Deft. Secretary
12969	12969	of the Commwealth notice of action by
12970	12970	House
12971	12971	of Representatives
12972	12972	01/25/2012 Declaratory JUDGMENT
12973	12973	on Finding of the Court Nunc Pro Tune. It is
12974	12974	Ordered and Adjudged and Declared: that the election is a tie vote.
12975	12975	That the election is declared to be in doubt and a new election
12976	12976	pursuant
12977	12977	to GL Chap 56, Sec 59; GL Chap 54, Sec 141 is ORDERED.
12978	12978	(Tucker,J.) Entered and copies mailed 1/25/12
12979	12979	01/25/2012 EXHIBITS IMPOUNDED
12980	12980	File Ref
12981	12981	Nbr.
12982	12982	12
12983	12983	13
12984	12984	14
12985	12985	14.1
12986	12986	14.2
12987	12987	14.3
12988	12988	14.4
12989	12989	1
12990	12990	4.5
12991	12991	15
12992	12992	17
12993	12993	16
12994	12994	18
12995	12995	19
12996	12996	20
12997	12997	21
12998	12998	Image
12999	12999	Avail.
13000	13000	lmagg
13001	13001	lmagg
13002	13002	lmagg
13003	13003	lmagg
13004	13004	lmagg
13005	13005	lmagg
13006	13006	lmagg
13007	13007	lmagg
13008	13008	lmagg
13009	13009	lmagg
13010	13010	lmagg ATTACHMENT F
13011	13011	1 of 3
13012	13012	HOUSE DOCKET,
13013	13013	NO. 3574 FILED ON: 2/10/2011
13014	13014	HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 43
13015	13015	The Commonwealth
13016	13016	of Massachusetts
13017	13017	House of Representatives,
13018	13018	_______________
13019	13019	In the Year Two Thousand Eleven
13020	13020	_______________
13021	13021	1 Ordered,
13022	13022	The
13023	13023	special committee of the House to examine the returns of votes for
13024	13024	2 Representative in the several Representative Districts of the Commonwealth, reports, on the
13025	13025	3 residue, that the accompanying Order relative to a special election for the Sixth Worcester
13026	13026	4 District, ought to be adopted.
13027	13027	5 For the committee,
13028	13028	6
13029	13029	MICHAEL J. MORAN
13030	13030	7
13031	13031	EUGENE L. O'FLAHERTY
13032	13032	8
13033	13033	GEORGE N. PETERSON, JR.
13034	13034	9
13035	13035	On November 2, 2010, elections for Representative were held throughout the Commonwealth of
13036	13036	10
13037	13037	Massachusetts. On December 10, 2010 the Governor and Council met to examine and tabulate
13038	13038	11 the November 2, 2010 election results as prescribed by the Constitution and Laws of the 2 of 3
13039	13039	12 Commonwealth.
13040	13040	The Sixth Worcester District election results were not examined or included in
13041	13041	13 the tabulation of results transmitted to the State Secretary under Chapter 54, Section 115 of the
13042	13042	14 General Laws.
13043	13043	15 As
13044	13044
13045	13045	16 transmitted by the State Secretary. One hundred and fifty nine representative districts were
13046	13046	17 examined and certified by the Governor and Council and the Governor issued a summons to
13047	13047	18 those who appeared to be elected to meet on January 5, 2011 as evidence of their qualification to
13048	13048	19 serve in 187th General Court. On January 5, 2011, the Secretary of the Commonwealth laid
13049	13049	20 before the Honorable House of Representatives the return of votes cast for Representative at the
13050	13050	21 election held in the Commonwealth on November 2, 2010. The House of Representatives was
13051	13051	22 informed by the state secretary on January 5, 2011 that the returns for the Sixth Worcester
13052	13052	23 District had not been certified by the Governor and Council.
13053	13053	24 The
13054	13054
13055	13055	25 Representatives Moran of Boston, O’Flaherty of Chelsea, and Peterson of Grafton to examine
13056	13056	26 the election results. Mr. Moran of Boston submitted an in-part report for the special committee
13057	13057	27 that one-hundred and fifty nine persons had been duly elected.
13058	13058	28 Furthermore,
13059	13059	there was no claim of qualification to election by any candidate for the Sixth
13060	13060	29 Worcester District as prescribed by Chapter 3, Section 4 since the election results were in doubt
13061	13061	30 and contested ballots were being adjudicated in Worcester Superior Court. No decision from the
13062	13062	31 court was available on January 5, 2011 for review and consideration as evidence by the special
13063	13063	32 committee to determine a duly elected representative for the Sixth Worcester District. Therefore 3 of 3
13064	13064	33 under
13065	13065
13066	13066	34 represent the Sixth Worcester District until a successor is chosen and qualified.
13067	13067	35 Upon
13068	13068
13069	13069	36 election is a tie vote and that there was failure to elect a Representative for the Sixth Worcester
13070	13070	37 District.
13071	13071	38 The
13072	13072
13073	13073	39 elect pursuant to Chapter 54 Section 141 of the General Laws and order a new election to be held
13074	13074	40 for Representative for the Sixth Worcester District. Therefore be it
13075	13075	41 Ordered,
13076	13076	That the Speaker issue a precept giving notice that there was a failure to elect for the
13077	13077	42 Sixth Worcester District and appointing a time for an election.
13078	13078	43 H.R.,
13079	13079
13080	13080	44 A
13081	13081
13082	13082	45 STEVEN
13083	13083	T. JAMES, Clerk of the House. 1
13084	13084
13085	13085	GERALD A. MCDONOUGH
13086	13086	ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
13087	13087
13088	13088	13 Hollis Street 617-529-1527
13089	13089	Cambridge, MA 02140 gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com
13090	13090
13091	13091
13092	13092
13093	13093	MEMORANDUM
13094	13094
13095	13095
13096	13096	TO: Representatives Michael S. Day, Daniel J. Ryan, and Bradley H. Jones, Jr.,
13097	13097	Members of the Select Committee of the House to Examine the Return of
13098	13098	Votes for Certain Representative Districts
13099	13099
13100	13100	FROM: Gerald A. McDonough, Counsel for Kristin Kassner
13101	13101
13102	13102	RE: Kristin Kassner’s Post-Hearing Submission
13103	13103
13104	13104	DATE: January 17, 2023
13105	13105
13106	13106	------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13107	13107
13108	13108	The purpose of this Post-Hearing Memorandum is to provide the Select Committee with
13109	13109	specific statutory citations and other legal support for some of the issues that were raised
13110	13110	during the course of the hearing. While Mr. Mirra agrees that there was no fraud in the
13111	13111	recount, he contends that there was “human error” by the election officials in the Second
13112	13112	Essex District. This is both disingenuous and wrong. The municipal election officials
13113	13113	worked tirelessly to get the recount right, and they deserve nothing but thanks and
13114	13114	gratitude for their efforts.
13115	13115
13116	13116	Moreover, for there to be any “human error,” there must first be some error, and Mr.
13117	13117	Mirra has failed to establish that there was any error of any kind, either legal or factual.
13118	13118	By way of illustration, Mr. Mirra contends that the protested ballot where the voter filled
13119	13119	in the oval for Mr. Mirra but also wrote in the name “Donald Trump” in the space for
13120	13120	write-in votes should be counted as a vote for Mr. Mirra, but he is wrong as a matter of
13121	13121	fact and of law.
13122	13122
13123	13123	• As a factual matter, while Counsel for each candidate differed at the Select
13124	13124	Committee’s hearing as to whether the write-in oval had been filled in or not, a
13125	13125	volunteer for Mr. Mirra, who submitted an affidavit on his behalf regarding this 2
13126	13126
13127	13127	ballot, stated in his affidavit that “The voter also appeared to write in ‘Donald
13128	13128	Trump’ in the write-in section of the Second Essex District State Representative
13129	13129	race, and the voter filled in the write-in oval.” See Declaration of Charles
13130	13130	Takeshan, p. 1, ¶ 4 (emphasis added). Mr. Mirra’s Counsel, therefore, was clearly
13131	13131	mistaken about that fact. Thus, that ballot was clearly an overvote and the Board
13132	13132	of Registrars was correct to call the ballot a blank. See G.L. c. 54, § 106 (“If a
13133	13133	voter marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office . . . [the]
13134	13134	ballot shall not be counted for such office”).
13135	13135
13136	13136	• Moreover, whether the oval was filled in or not is irrelevant because write-in votes
13137	13137	where a voter writes in a name must be counted as a write-in vote even if there is
13138	13138	no marking next to the written-in name. The Secretary of State’s Regulations
13139	13139	clearly state that nothing other than the name of the person is necessary to
13140	13140	effectuate a write-in vote. See 950 CMR 52.03(10) (“voter may cast a write-in or
13141	13141	sticker vote for a candidate whose name does not appear on the ballot for that
13142	13142	office. The voter is not required to mark an “X” beside the name”).
13143	13143
13144	13144	Consequently, Mr. Mirra was wrong about this particular matter on both the facts and the
13145	13145	law. Set forth below are brief responses to the issues raised by Mr. Mirra’s Counsel at the
13146	13146	hearing, primarily to provide the Committee with further legal support for Ms. Kassner’s
13147	13147	response to those legal issues.
13148	13148
13149	13149	The Mail-In Ballot Signatures:
13150	13150
13151	13151	There is no statutory basis for Mr. Mirra’s complaint about the mail-in ballot
13152	13152	signatures.
13153	13153
13154	13154	Challenges to mail-in ballots, like challenges to any ballots, must be made at the
13155	13155	time that the ballots are cast. See G.L. c. 54, § 96 (“All ballots transmitted under any
13156	13156	provision of sections eighty-six to one hundred and three, inclusive, shall be subject to
13157	13157	challenge when and as cast for non-compliance with any provision of sections eighty-
13158	13158	six to one hundred and three, inclusive, or for any other reason allowed by law”). Any
13159	13159	challenges to mail-in ballots at or after the recount, therefore, are not challenges to those
13160	13160	ballots “when . . . cast” and are untimely.
13161	13161
13162	13162	Additionally, there is no provision in the recount statute for doing anything with
13163	13163	mail-in ballots other than reviewing sealed, rejected mail-in ballots for error. See G.L. c.
13164	13164	54, § 135 (“in the case of a recount of the ballots cast for an office, the votes cast for all
13165	13165	of the candidates for such office, including blanks cast, shall be recounted . . . and
13166	13166	determination shall be made whether each sealed absentee ballot envelope rejected as
13167	13167	defective should have been rejected or accepted, and the results recorded on the blank 3
13168	13168
13169	13169	forms provided therefor, together with the absentee ballot envelopes and applications for
13170	13170	such absent voting ballots”).
13171	13171
13172	13172	Finally, Mr. Mirra complains that the election officials from the Second Essex
13173	13173	District failed to compare the signatures on mail-in envelopes with voter registration
13174	13174	cards. See Declaration of Leonard Mirra, p. 2, ¶¶ 10-13. Mr. Mirra is again incorrect
13175	13175	about the status of the law, because there is no requirement to compare the signatures on
13176	13176	mail-in ballot envelopes with voter registration cards, but only with mail-in ballot
13177	13177	applications. See G.L. c. 54, § 25B(a)(14) (requirement to compare signatures on mail-in
13178	13178	ballot envelopes with mail-in ballot applications). Moreover, applications submitted to
13179	13179	the Secretary of State via the online portal do not even require wet signatures. See id. §
13180	13180	25B(a)(6).
13181	13181
13182	13182
13183	13183	The Spoiled Ballots from Rowley:
13184	13184
13185	13185	In Rowley, several mail-in ballots rejected by the scanner on Election Day were
13186	13186	set aside as spoiled, even if the spoiling was due to another election contest, and those
13187	13187	votes were not cast for other races which were unaffected by any spoiling. The recount
13188	13188	statute, however, specifically provides for the review of spoiled ballots. See G.L. c. 54, §
13189	13189	135 (“in the case of a recount of the ballots cast for an office, the votes cast for all of the
13190	13190	candidates for such office, including blanks cast, shall be recounted and all spoiled and
13191	13191	unused ballots shall also be counted”). There was no error in counting those spoiled
13192	13192	ballots which should have been hand counted at the end of the Election Day.
13193	13193
13194	13194	A spoiled ballot that should have been counted made a difference in the litigation
13195	13195	involving Rep. Alicea and Rep. Durant in 2011. The following determination made by
13196	13196	the Superior Court in that case is compelling support for the position taken by the Rowley
13197	13197	Board of Registrars:
13198	13198
13199	13199	The Absentee Ballot in issue was rejected by the voting machine.
13200	13200	The tabulator could not read it, presumably because the ballot contained
13201	13201	marks read as being votes for two pairs of candidates for Governor and
13202	13202	Lieutenant Governor when the ballot instruction required a "Vote for
13203	13203	ONE." When ballots are mistakenly "spoiled" by a voter, the voter can
13204	13204	return the ballot and request a replacement if the machine rejected it and
13205	13205	did not count it. The "spoiled" ballot is then placed in the spoiled ballot
13206	13206	envelope and the voter marks the replacement ballot and it is reinserted
13207	13207	in the tabulator. See G.L. c. 54, § 81.
13208	13208
13209	13209	Here the absent voter was not present at the polling place and
13210	13210	therefore was not afforded the opportunity to obtain a replacement ballot.
13211	13211	Upon receiving this rejected ballot the Precinct 5 Clerk erred in not 4
13212	13212
13213	13213	segregating the ballot in a separate envelope. Alternatively a police
13214	13214	officer could have been requested to override the tabulator's rejection so
13215	13215	that the ballot could enter the machine and be placed in a separate
13216	13216	compartment therein for manual counting at the end of the night.
13217	13217	Instead, the ballot was placed in the spoiled ballot envelope and was
13218	13218	never counted in the Election Night Tabulation.
13219	13219
13220	13220	"A voter who has cast his ballot in good faith should not be
13221	13221	disenfranchised 'because of the failure of a ministerial officer to perform
13222	13222	some duty imposed upon him by law."' McCavitt, 385 Mass. at 841-42,
13223	13223	quoting Meyer v. Keller, 376 So. 2d 636, 638 (La. App. 1979).
13224	13224
13225	13225	Applying this legal principle I find that The Absentee Ballot is a
13226	13226	legal ballot. If the voter's intent can be determined with reasonable
13227	13227	certainty from an inspection of the ballot recognition of that intent must
13228	13228	be made and the vote counted. Here upon de novo review I find The
13229	13229	Absentee Ballot manifests the intent to cast a vote for Alicea.
13230	13230
13231	13231	Alicea v. Registrars of the Voters of Southbridge, Worcester Superior Court Civil Action
13232	13232	No. 2010-2624, pp. 7-8 (Feb. 1, 2011). For the same reasons, the decision of the Rowley
13233	13233	Board of Registrars to count those improperly spoiled ballots should not be overturned.
13234	13234
13235	13235
13236	13236	The Discrepancy between number of certified and recounted ballots:
13237	13237
13238	13238	Discrepancies between the number of certified ballots and recounted ballots is far
13239	13239	from unusual. In fact, ensuring that the number of ballots is accurately counted is a
13240	13240	feature of recounts. And discrepancies go both way – the number of ballots in Newbury,
13241	13241	Precinct 2 went down from the number of certified ballots – one less blank and two less
13242	13242	votes for Kassner.
13243	13243
13244	13244	The Municipal Defendants’ brief appropriately rebuts Mirra’s contention – absent
13245	13245	evidence of fraud or tampering with ballots, such events do not cast doubt on the
13246	13246	substantive outcome of an election. See Joint Record Appendix, pp. 90-91, citing Penta v.
13247	13247	City of Revere, 1997 WL 799478, p. 8 (Mass. Super. Dec. 23, 1997). And Mr. Mirra has
13248	13248	publicly stated that there was no fraud in the recount.
13249	13249
13250	13250
13251	13251	Individual Protested Ballots:
13252	13252
13253	13253	Although Mr. Mirra filed protests on over 30 ballots, he has publicly directed his
13254	13254	objections primarily at only two of those protested ballots. The first protested ballot, with
13255	13255	a write-in vote for “Donald Trump,” is discussed above. 5
13256	13256
13257	13257
13258	13258	The second specific ballot to which Mr. Mirra objected was one in which the voter
13259	13259	scribbled marks rather than filled in ovals, and it is similar to the ballot in the Alicea case,
13260	13260	where a similar marking was considered an overvote. See Alicea v. Registrars of the
13261	13261	Voters of Southbridge, Worcester Superior Court Civil Action No. 2010-2624, p. 8 (Feb.
13262	13262	1, 2011). The Alicea Court noted that it looked like the voter had a tremorous hand or
13263	13263	compromised eyesight. In this case, the scribbled markings were similar to the disputed
13264	13264	Alicea ballot – two scribbled markings, one mostly in the oval for Mirra, and the other
13265	13265	next to and partly in the oval for Kassner – to which one of Mr. Mirra’s affiants agrees.
13266	13266	See Declaration of David Olds, p. 1, ¶ 5 (“the voter appeared to fill out his ballot with a
13267	13267	tremorous hand, making discontinuous marks”). In such a case, where the voter either
13268	13268	voted for more than one candidate, or if the voter’s choice could not be determined, the
13269	13269	ballot could not be counted for the State Representative contest. See G.L. c. 54, § 106 (“If
13270	13270	a voter marks more names than there are persons to be elected to an office, or if [the]
13271	13271	choice cannot be determined, [the] ballot shall not be counted for such office”). The
13272	13272	Ipswich Board’s decision to call the ballot a blank was the correct decision.
13273	13273
13274	13274
13275	13275
13276	13276	1
13277	13277
13278	13278	193
13279	13279	RD
13280	13280	GENERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
13281	13281
13282	13282	Special Committee to Examine the Returns of Votes for Certain Representative Districts
13283	13283
13284	13284
13285	13285	REP. LEONARD MIRRA a/k/a LENNY MIRRA,
13286	13286
13287	13287	v.
13288	13288
13289	13289	KRISTIN KASSNER
13290	13290
13291	13291
13292	13292	REPRESENTATIVE LEONARD MIRRA’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
13293	13293
13294	13294	Executive Summary
13295	13295	The Special Committee has the jurisdiction and power to enter the relief Representative
13296	13296	Leonard Mirra seeks, specifically, either to: (1) conduct a de novo review of the challenged ballots
13297	13297	and declare that Rep. Mirra was the rightful winner of the Election; or (2) alternatively, hold the
13298	13298	House cannot seat either Rep. Mirra or Ms. Kassner because the accuracy of the Election/Recount
13299	13299	results has been placed in substantial doubt. This Committee should enter that relief because the
13300	13300	Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in Connolly that town election officials are required
13301	13301	to perform their duty under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 54, § 94; and the town election officials did not
13302	13302	perform their mandatory duty. The law and record also show that five (5) votes should not have
13303	13303	been counted for Ms. Kassner because the Rowley Registrars and Rowley town counsel
13304	13304	misinterpreted the Secretary’s guidance and wrongly believed that the term “count” meant it
13305	13305	allowed them to count for a candidate instead of merely counting the number of spoiled ballots.
13306	13306	This error additionally supports the relief Rep. Mirra seeks here.
13307	13307	INTRODUCTION
13308	13308	On Friday, January 13, 2023, at 10:00 AM, the Special Committee (“Committee”) created
13309	13309	by the Massachusetts House of Representatives (“House”) held a hearing (“Hearing”) on the
13310	13310	2
13311	13311
13312	13312	election for the Second Essex District State Representative seat (“Election”). At the conclusion of
13313	13313	the Hearing, the Committee determined that the record would remain open until close of business
13314	13314	Tuesday, January 17, 2023, and ordered that the parties submit any supplemental materials prior
13315	13315	to the closure of the record. Pursuant to the Committee’s order, Representative Leonard Mirra
13316	13316	hereby submits this supplemental memorandum to address key issues raised during the Hearing.
13317	13317	I. THE COMMITTEE AND HOUSE HAVE THE JURISDICTION AND POWER TO
13318	13318	ENTER THE RELEF REPRESENTATIVE MIRRA SEEKS
13319	13319	At this juncture, the Committee has the jurisdiction and power to evaluate the merits and
13320	13320	accuracy of the Election and determine that either Rep. Mirra is the rightful winner of the Election,
13321	13321	or that the Second Essex District State Representative seat is vacant. The Massachusetts
13322	13322	Constitution provides that the “[H]ouse . . . shall be the judge of the returns, elections, and
13323	13323	qualifications of its own member[.]” Mass. Const., Part II, ch. 1, § 3, art. 10. The Massachusetts
13324	13324	Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has explained further that the House, once it exercises its authority
13325	13325	to determine who it may seat, has the power to adjudicate on an election and its returns. See Joint
13326	13326	Record Appendix at 69–70 (Secretary Galvin’s Response Brief at 2–3).
13327	13327	Without waiving his rights to seek judicial relief pursuant to the broad equitable power of
13328	13328	the courts under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 56, § 59, or other Massachusetts law that confers jurisdiction
13329	13329	to the courts on an election matter, Rep. Mirra acknowledges that the Committee—and by
13330	13330	extension, the House—has broad equitable power, akin to the courts’ power provided under
13331	13331	Section 59, to conduct a de novo review of the challenged ballots; amend the results of the
13332	13332	Election/Recount; declare a winner of the Election; or determine that the seat is vacant. Mass.
13333	13333	Const., Part II, ch. 1, § 3, art. 10; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 56, § 59; Ms. Kassner’s Pre-Hearing Memo,
13334	13334	Attach. C at 13.
13335	13335	3
13336	13336
13337	13337	The House has determined in the past that a Special Committee does not have the power
13338	13338	to order a new election. See Ms. Kassner’s Pre-Hearing Memo, Attach. C at 13–14. This, however,
13339	13339	does not preclude the Committee from being the judge on the Election, its returns, and whether to
13340	13340	seat a candidate. Mass. Const., Part II, ch. 1, § 3, art. 10. Importantly, as stated by counsel for
13341	13341	Rep. Mirra during the Hearing, Rep. Mirra is not asking for the Committee to order a new election,
13342	13342	but rather for the Committee to either (1) conduct a de novo review of the challenged ballots and
13343	13343	declare that Rep. Mirra was the rightful winner of the Election; or (2) alternatively, hold that the
13344	13344	House cannot seat either Rep. Mirra or Ms. Kassner because the accuracy of the Election/Recount
13345	13345	results has been placed in substantial doubt. As a consequence, and by independent operation of
13346	13346	law, where no one is elected or seated, the House thereafter would be required to order a new
13347	13347	election. Ms. Kassner’s Pre-Hearing Memo, Attach. C at 13 (“a new election can be ordered by
13348	13348	the House only if there is either a vacancy, or a failure to elect a representative.”).
13349	13349	II. THE TOWN CLERKS’ DUTIES UNDER M ASS. GEN. LAWS CH. 54, § 94, ARE
13350	13350	MANDATORY AS BROADLY HELD IN CONNOLLY, AND CANNOT BE
13351	13351	TREATED AS DISCRETIONARY AS NARROWLY PERMITTED IN SWIFT
13352	13352
13353	13353	The Connolly decision controls over Swift. Massachusetts election officials are required to
13354	13354	compare the signature on a mail-in envelope with the signature on the corresponding voter
13355	13355	registration card and/or vote-by-mail applications, and if an election official cannot determine if
13356	13356	the signatures match, the mail-in envelope (and thus the ballot contained within it) must be
13357	13357	rejected. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 54, § 94 (“Section 94”). This duty is mandatory, not discretionary.
13358	13358	Connolly v. Sec’y of Commonwealth, 404 Mass. 556, 569–70 (1989) (holding that ballots that do
13359	13359	not comply with the procedural protections of Section 94 must be “Rejected as Defective” by
13360	13360	election officials and were “facially invalid” on recount). The SJC has made this clear:
13361	13361	We emphasize that election officials at the level of the original ballot count have
13362	13362	no discretion as to the statutory requirements for a valid [mail-in] ballot. Section 94
13363	13363	4
13364	13364
13365	13365	[] requires election officials at this level to enforce the procedural protections of
13366	13366	[Mass. Gen. Laws ch.] 54 against fraud in [mail-in] ballots.
13367	13367
13368	13368	Id. There is no wiggle room. There is no leeway. There is no discretion. The mandatory actions
13369	13369	required under Section 94 serve to protect the integrity of an election and “minimize[] the potential
13370	13370	for conjectural votes.” Connolly, 404 Mass. at 570.
13371	13371	The Swift decision—decided nearly 60 years earlier than Connolly—does not apply and
13372	13372	cannot undermine the reasoning and holding in the Connolly decision. In 1932, the SJC decided
13373	13373	an election dispute involving the failure of the mechanisms within the ballot box to operate as they
13374	13374	were designed to operate. Swift v. Registrars of Voters of Quincy, 281 Mass. 271 (1932). In an
13375	13375	opinion confined “strictly to the facts of the case at bar,” the SJC examined the mandatory nature
13376	13376	of “shall” in election statutes and determined that “where every human step was . . . taken as
13377	13377	directed by the statute” and the only fault was “by a machine,” the Court would not thwart the will
13378	13378	of the voter by rejecting a ballot on that ground. Id. at 281–82. At no point did the SJC in Swift
13379	13379	discuss Section 94 and in no sense may that decision be read to suggest that the statutory
13380	13380	requirements for a valid mail-in ballot and the procedural protections against fraud in mail-in
13381	13381	voting set forth in Section 94 could be waived. Swift, 281 Mass. at 281 (finding only an “implied
13382	13382	exception where as here the uncancelled ballots were due to no act of man but to the failure of a
13383	13383	mechanism prepared with all the care prescribed by law”).
13384	13384	The SJC in Connolly made clear that none of the examples or the lines of reasoning in the
13385	13385	Swift decision carry any weight with regard to Section 94. The very nature of Section 94 is to
13386	13386	mandate that town election officials adhere to their critical role as gatekeepers for mail-in voting.
13387	13387	See generally Connolly. Where, as in here, numerous signatures on mail-in envelopes did not
13388	13388	match the signatures on the corresponding voter registration cards, town election officials
13389	13389	abdicated their mandatory statutory duty under Section 94 by failing to reject facially invalid mail-
13390	13390	5
13391	13391
13392	13392	in envelopes. See, e.g., January 11, 2023 Declaration of Leonard Mirra ¶ 10 (“After inspection of
13393	13393	the mail-in envelopes and corresponding voter registration cards in five of the six towns in the
13394	13394	Second Essex District, my legal counsel, team, and I discovered a substantial number of signatures
13395	13395	did not match.”); ¶ 12 (“On information and belief, the town clerks and election officials for the
13396	13396	towns within the Second Essex District failed to reject ballots for voter-signature irregularities,
13397	13397	constituting a[n abdication] of the duty required of them [Section] 94.”). Accordingly, the failure
13398	13398	of the Second Essex District town election workers to perform their mandatory duty under
13399	13399	Section 94 casts substantial doubt on the accuracy of the Election results.
13400	13400	1
13401	13401
13402	13402	III. A TOWN’S BOARD OF REGISTRARS CANNOT UNSPOIL BALLOTS AND
13403	13403	SUBSEQUENTLY COUNT THE VOTES FOR CANDIDATES
13404	13404
13405	13405	There is no Massachusetts authority that allows for town registrars at a recount to count
13406	13406	votes on ballots that were marked as spoiled. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 54, § 81 (“If a voter spoils a
13407	13407	ballot, he may obtain two others, one at a time, upon returning each spoiled one, and all ballots so
13408	13408	returned shall immediately be marked by an election officer ‘Spoiled’”). The Rowley Registrars
13409	13409	and Rowley town counsel misinterpreted the Secretary’s guidance and wrongly believed that the
13410	13410	term “count” meant it allowed them to count for a candidate instead of merely counting the number
13411	13411	of spoiled ballots. Joint Record Appendix at 28 (Secretary’s Recount Guide at 6) (“The recount
13412	13412	includes counting all ballots cast for all the candidates for the office, blanks cast, all spoiled and
13413	13413	unused ballots, and absentee ballot envelopes and applications.”). No other town counted spoiled
13414	13414	ballots as votes for candidates.
13415	13415
13416	13416	1
13417	13417	Given that mail-in voting is now widespread in Massachusetts as a result of the Covid-19
13418	13418	Pandemic, the Committee and the House have the opportunity, in conjunction with the Office of
13419	13419	the Secretary of the Commonwealth, to insist upon adherence to mandatory statutory duties—
13420	13420	duties put in place by this Legislature—and “emphasize” the defenses against the “potential for
13421	13421	conjectural votes” and “protect[] . . . against fraud” in mail-in voting. Connolly, 404 Mass. at 569–
13422	13422	70. As the saying goes, “never let a good crisis go to waste.”
13423	13423	6
13424	13424
13425	13425	Nor is there anything in the Title 950 (Office of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) of
13426	13426	the Code of Massachusetts Regulations to suggest that a spoiled ballot may be counted for a
13427	13427	candidate. What Title 950 requires is for town election officials to count the spoiled ballots simply
13428	13428	to determine how many spoiled ballots they have. See 950 CMR 47.09; 950 CMR 47.10; 950 CMR
13429	13429	52.03; 950 CMR 52.04; 950 CMR 53.04; 950 CMR 54.06. This distinction is critical. Accordingly,
13430	13430	the five (5) votes “unspoiled” by the Rowley Registrars should not have been counted for
13431	13431	Ms. Kassner.
13432	13432
13433	13433
13434	13434	Dated: January 17, 2023
13435	13435
13436	13436	Respectfully submitted by,
13437	13437
13438	13438	/s/ Michael J. Sullivan
13439	13439	Michael J. Sullivan
13440	13440	J. Christopher Amrhein, Jr.
13441	13441	Ashcroft Law Firm
13442	13442	200 State Street, 7th Floor
13443	13443	Boston, Massachusetts 02109
13444	13444	T: 617-573-9400
13445	13445	E: msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com
13446	13446	E: camrhein@ashcroftlawfirm.com
13447	13447
13448	13448	Attorneys for Leonard Mirra
13449	13449
13450	13450
13451	13451	Volume: I
13452	13452	Pages: 74
13453	13453	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
13454	13454	Special Committee of the House to Examine the Returns of Votes
13455	13455	for Certain Representative Districts
13456	13456	SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
13457	13457	Representative Michael S. Day, Chair,
13458	13458	31st Middlesex District
13459	13459	Representative Daniel J. Ryan,
13460	13460	2nd Suffolk District
13461	13461	Representative Bradley H. Jones, Jr.,
13462	13462	20th Middlesex District
13463	13463	Date of Hearing: Friday, January 13, 2023
13464	13464	Time: 10:00 a.m.
13465	13465	Location: Room A2, Massachusetts State House 2
13466	13466	A P P E A R A N C E S1
13467	13467	Michael J. Sullivan, Esq.2
13468	13468	Ashcroft Sullivan, LLC3
13469	13469	200 State Street4
13470	13470	7th Floor5
13471	13471	Boston, MA 021096
13472	13472	617-573-94007
13473	13473	msullivan@ashcroftlawfirm.com8
13474	13474	and9
13475	13475	J. Christopher Amrhein, Esq.10
13476	13476	20 Downer Ave., Suite 411
13477	13477	Hingham, MA 0204312
13478	13478	781-749-884413
13479	13479	Representing: Leonard Mirra14
13480	13480	15
13481	13481	Gerald McDonough, Esq.16
13482	13482	13 Hollis Street17
13483	13483	Cambridge, MA 0214018
13484	13484	617-720-050119
13485	13485	gerry@gmcdonoughlaw.com20
13486	13486	Representing: Kristin Kassner21
13487	13487	ALSO PRESENT: 22
13488	13488	Leonard Mirra, State Representative Candidate, Kristin Kassner,23
13489	13489	State Representative Candidate, General Audience24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13490	13490	781-383-1188 3
13491	13491	P R O C E E D I N G S1
13492	13492	2
13493	13493	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Good morning,3
13494	13494	everyone. We're going to convene this Special4
13495	13495	Committee of the House to examine the returns of5
13496	13496	certain representative districts. Today is6
13497	13497	January 13, 2023, approximately 10:00 in the7
13498	13498	morning. We're here in Room A2 of the8
13499	13499	Massachusetts State House.9
13500	13500	I am Representative Michael Day, honored10
13501	13501	to be the Chair of this Special Committee. To my11
13502	13502	right is minority leader Representative Brad12
13503	13503	Jones of the 20th Middlesex District. To my13
13504	13504	left is the other member of the Special14
13505	13505	Committee, Chairman -- I'm sorry, Representative15
13506	13506	Daniel Ryan, of the 2nd Suffolk.16
13507	13507	We are here today pursuant to a charge17
13508	13508	from the House itself. This hearing -- we will18
13509	13509	run over some preliminary matters. This hearing19
13510	13510	is being recorded, it's also being live streamed,20
13511	13511	close captioned, and a transcript is being21
13512	13512	produced by a stenographer who is present with us22
13513	13513	as well. I will review the ground rules of the23
13514	13514	Committee, agreed to by the Committee and24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13515	13515	781-383-1188 4
13516	13516	transmitted to the relative parties.1
13517	13517	Opening statements are going to be2
13518	13518	welcomed by counsel or for the -- or by the3
13519	13519	candidate, followed by questions by committee4
13520	13520	members themselves. This hearing is open to the5
13521	13521	public. Obviously, we're conducting it as we do6
13522	13522	with other hearings, any outbursts or political7
13523	13523	demonstrations are not welcome, and will not be8
13524	13524	tolerated.9
13525	13525	So we now turn to the matter before us10
13526	13526	this morning. The House convened on January 4,11
13527	13527	2023, in accordance with the Constitution of the12
13528	13528	Commonwealth. We received a communication from13
13529	13529	the Secretary of the Commonwealth regarding the14
13530	13530	returns of the November 8, 2022 elections, for15
13531	13531	representatives in general court.16
13532	13532	The order was unanimously adopted by the17
13533	13533	House to form a Special Committee of the House to18
13534	13534	examine the returns. This is the House's custom,19
13535	13535	and is consistent with the provision of Article20
13536	13536	10 of our State Constitution. The Speaker and21
13537	13537	members appointed, Representative Ryan, Jones,22
13538	13538	and myself, to serve on that Committee, which is23
13539	13539	why we're here today.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13540	13540	781-383-1188 5
13541	13541	Each member of this Committee then1
13542	13542	signed an order, which was unanimously adopted by2
13543	13543	the House. At that swearing in, we found that3
13544	13544	158 of our colleagues were duly elected and ought4
13545	13545	to be sworn in by the Governor.5
13546	13546	In two cases, the 2nd Essex and the 1st6
13547	13547	Middlesex, we determined that further review was7
13548	13548	appropriate. In the 2nd Essex, according to8
13549	13549	Article 64, as amended by Amendment 82 to the9
13550	13550	Constitution of the Commonwealth, Representative10
13551	13551	Mirra serves in a holdover capacity from last11
13552	13552	session until the House determines how to move12
13553	13553	forward. The1st Middlesex seat remains vacant13
13554	13554	currently. We're here to hold a hearing on the14
13555	13555	2nd Essex District challenge this morning.15
13556	13556	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: Mr. Chairman, I16
13557	13557	move that the communication of the Secretary of17
13558	13558	the Commonwealth issued to the House on January18
13559	13559	4th, be entered into the record.19
13560	13560	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Representative Ryan20
13561	13561	offers a motion to enter the communication in the21
13562	13562	record. All in favor? Seconded by22
13563	13563	Representative Jones. Any opposed? Okay, motion23
13564	13564	passes. Communication will be entered into the24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13565	13565	781-383-1188 6
13566	13566	record.1
13567	13567	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: Mr. Chairman, I2
13568	13568	further moved that the order you referenced3
13569	13569	established in this Special Committee be entered4
13570	13570	into the record.5
13571	13571	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Okay. Seconded by6
13572	13572	Representative Jones. All in favor? Any7
13573	13573	opposed? That -- that shall also be moved into8
13574	13574	the record.9
13575	13575	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: Mr. Chairman, I10
13576	13576	move that the order of the Special Committee of11
13577	13577	the House, seating 158 of our colleagues be12
13578	13578	entered into the record.13
13579	13579	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Second by14
13580	13580	Representative Jones. All in favor? Aye. None15
13581	13581	opposed. That motion is passes as well. That16
13582	13582	order shall be entered into the record.17
13583	13583	Prior to this publicly noticed hearing,18
13584	13584	the Special Committee requested any documentation19
13585	13585	from counsel or the candidates they wish to offer20
13586	13586	to us in support of their claims. We received a21
13587	13587	joint records appendix on behalf of both22
13588	13588	Representative Mirra and Ms. Kassner.23
13589	13589	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: Mr. Chairman, I24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13590	13590	781-383-1188 7
13591	13591	moved that the joint records Appendix be entered1
13592	13592	into the record.2
13593	13593	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Seconded by3
13594	13594	Representative Jones. All in favor? Aye. None4
13595	13595	opposed. That joint records appendix will also5
13596	13596	be entered into the formal record.6
13597	13597	And additionally, to that joint7
13598	13598	appendix, the Committee received the following8
13599	13599	documents from Attorney Sullivan on behalf of9
13600	13600	Representative Mirra, a supplemental affidavit of10
13601	13601	Leonard Mirra, an affidavit of Cynthia Russes11
13602	13602	with an Exhibit attached A entitled Rowley12
13603	13603	Recount Minutes, an affidavit of Sandra Capo, an13
13604	13604	affidavit of Charles Tekesian, an affidavit of14
13605	13605	David Olds, and an affidavit of Glenn Kemper. We15
13606	13606	have a motion to move those into the record.16
13607	13607	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Second.17
13608	13608	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Second. All in18
13609	13609	favor Aye. All right. Those -- those will be19
13610	13610	moved in as well.20
13611	13611	And then, finally, the committee also21
13612	13612	received the following documents from Attorney22
13613	13613	McDonough on behalf of his client, Ms. Kassner,23
13614	13614	Memorandum dated January 12, briefing the24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13615	13615	781-383-1188 8
13616	13616	committee on Ms. Kassner's case, along with1
13617	13617	attach Exhibits A through F, inclusive. Do we2
13618	13618	have a motion to move that into the record?3
13619	13619	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: So moved.4
13620	13620	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: All right. Second.5
13621	13621	Those will be moved into the record as well. I6
13622	13622	believe that is the entirety of the materials7
13623	13623	submitted to the Special Committee documentary --8
13624	13624	documentation-wise. And so we will move all9
13625	13625	those into the official record.10
13626	13626	And at this time, I will call forward11
13627	13627	representative Leonard Mirra and his counsel for12
13628	13628	opening remarks. And I just asked you to13
13629	13629	identify yourselves for the record and you're14
13630	13630	welcome to proceed.15
13631	13631	REPRESENTATIVE MIRRA: State16
13632	13632	Representative Lenny Mirra.17
13633	13633	MR. SULLIVAN: Good morning, Mr. Chair,18
13634	13634	Representative Ryan and Representative Jones.19
13635	13635	Michael Sullivan, I'm joined by Christopher20
13636	13636	Amrhein on behalf of representative Lenny Mirra.21
13637	13637	Let me proceed. I have a very brief opening.22
13638	13638	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Go right ahead,23
13639	13639	Counsel.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13640	13640	781-383-1188 9
13641	13641	MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. First, I want1
13642	13642	-- I want to recognize the Speaker and the House2
13643	13643	of Representatives for creating this Special3
13644	13644	Committee as consistent with the constitutional4
13645	13645	obligations and authority.5
13646	13646	Fair and free elections are the bedrock6
13647	13647	of our society. We're grateful that this7
13648	13648	Committee has been assembled to safeguard the8
13649	13649	voters freedom of choice, and the candidates9
13650	13650	right to seek public office, rights that are10
13651	13651	fundamentally intertwined, and shall not be11
13652	13652	infringed.12
13653	13653	As the record clearly established,13
13654	13654	Representative Lenny Mirra was initially14
13655	13655	determined to be the winner of the election by a15
13656	13656	margin of ten votes. His opponent, Ms. Kassner,16
13657	13657	petitioned for a district-wide recount, and17
13658	13658	according to the reported recount results, Ms.18
13659	13659	Kassner gained a net total of 11 votes, emerging19
13660	13660	as the purported post count -- recount winner, by20
13661	13661	the slimmest of all margins, one vote. The only21
13662	13662	closer election you could have would be a tie.22
13663	13663	The Committee and the House should be23
13664	13664	most interested in understanding both the facts24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13665	13665	781-383-1188 10
13666	13666	and the -- and the evidence uncovered during the1
13667	13667	recount. And so several examples of that, which2
13668	13668	are part of the record is the fact that there3
13669	13669	were 14 extra ballots discovered at the Ipswich4
13670	13670	recount that weren't identified during the5
13671	13671	initial election. There was no explanation6
13672	13672	provided for the substantial increase on the 147
13673	13673	extra ballots.8
13674	13674	There were also, in Rowley was the9
13675	13675	unspoiling of five ballots and the counting of10
13676	13676	all five of those unspoiled ballots for Ms.11
13677	13677	Kassner. Spoiled ballots are typically not12
13678	13678	unspoiled. A ballot gets spoiled for a number of13
13679	13679	reasons, including a voter determining that they14
13680	13680	had made a mistake and wished to have another15
13681	13681	ballot, and the initial ballot is marked spoiled.16
13682	13682	The same could be true with regards to a17
13683	13683	mail-in ballot where a voter subsequent decides18
13684	13684	that they want to vote either in person or to19
13685	13685	correct a -- a mailing -- earlier mail-in ballot.20
13686	13686	Also, in Ipswich registrars incorrectly21
13687	13687	overturned two ballots that were called for22
13688	13688	Representative Mirra during the recount, despite23
13689	13689	compelling evidence that the votes should have24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13690	13690	781-383-1188 11
13691	13691	remained counted for Mr. Mirra.1
13692	13692	Also, indicated in the record, is the2
13693	13693	2nd Essex District Town clerks failed to reject3
13694	13694	mail-in ballots with signatures on the mail-in4
13695	13695	envelopes that did not match the corresponding5
13696	13696	voter registration cards or the signature6
13697	13697	requesting the mail-in ballots.7
13698	13698	This is an important non-discretionary8
13699	13699	step required by Mass General Laws created by9
13700	13700	this body, because it's a significant safeguard10
13701	13701	against fraud. And one of the cases on point is11
13702	13702	the Connolly versus the Secretary of the12
13703	13703	Commonwealth Case, which I think both parties13
13704	13704	have referenced in their submissions.14
13705	13705	In the recount, counsel for Mr. Mirra15
13706	13706	made formal objections to the above issues, along16
13707	13707	with a number of others, that we're prepared to17
13708	13708	discuss. Importantly, all of the challenged18
13709	13709	ballots were preserved for litigation and should19
13710	13710	be available for this Special Committee to20
13711	13711	review.21
13712	13712	On December 21, Mr. Mirra filed a22
13713	13713	lawsuit against several second -- 2nd Essex23
13714	13714	District registrars and clerks, as well as the24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13715	13715	781-383-1188 12
13716	13716	Secretary of the Commonwealth, challenging the1
13717	13717	election. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Mirra2
13718	13718	requested on an emergency basis, that the3
13719	13719	Superior Court review just two of the Ipswich4
13720	13720	ballots that would materially change the post5
13721	13721	recount result of the election, even if all the6
13722	13722	other challenged ballots remained the same. So7
13723	13723	it was not burdensome at all in terms of8
13724	13724	reviewing those two ballots.9
13725	13725	At least according to the witness's10
13726	13726	declaration, both of those ballots clearly11
13727	13727	indicate a vote for Mr. Mirra. I think they're12
13728	13728	referenced as Bates documents number 35 and 37 in13
13729	13729	the submission. And it was one that had a14
13730	13730	write-in of Donald Trump originally in the bullet15
13731	13731	bubble filled out for Mr. Mirra, and it was16
13732	13732	originally called for Mr. Mirra, and then17
13733	13733	overturned by the registrars. And the case on18
13734	13734	point there I think is the O'Brien Case, which we19
13735	13735	cite as well.20
13736	13736	On December 29th in the face of no law21
13737	13737	divesting the Superior Court of jurisdiction at22
13738	13738	this juncture, plus the representation by the23
13739	13739	Secretary and the admission by the municipal24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13740	13740	781-383-1188 13
13741	13741	defendants that the court still had proper1
13742	13742	jurisdiction, the judge, we believe wrongly2
13743	13743	dismissed the complaint and denied the limited3
13744	13744	relief requested, and though had all the ballots4
13745	13745	in its possession, returned the ballots without5
13746	13746	examining them.6
13747	13747	The court claimed it had no jurisdiction7
13748	13748	to hear them out. The finding of the lack of8
13749	13749	jurisdiction by the court was opposed by Mr.9
13750	13750	Mirra, the towns, and the Secretary of the10
13751	13751	Commonwealth. Mr. Mirra's complaint thoroughly11
13752	13752	describes the reasons Mr. Mirra sought his rights12
13753	13753	for judicial relief and forms the basis for the13
13754	13754	issue is squarely before this Committee.14
13755	13755	Furthermore, to provide additional15
13756	13756	evidence for this Committee, we have submitted,16
13757	13757	as the chair has noted, several declarations that17
13758	13758	describe the process and certain subjective18
13759	13759	determinations that were made during the recount.19
13760	13760	Keeping in mind, being correct on just one20
13761	13761	challenged ballot, makes the difference between a21
13762	13762	loss and the seat being unfilled. Being correct22
13763	13763	on just two ballots, would change the results of23
13764	13764	the election.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13765	13765	781-
13766	13766	383-1188 14
13767	13767	Mr. Mirra has only asked for one thing1
13768	13768	since the recount; examine the ballots, examine2
13769	13769	the flaws, and make a fully determined and3
13770	13770	objective decision of what was the will of the4
13771	13771	people of the 2nd Essex District.5
13772	13772	In conclusion, members of the Committee,6
13773	13773	the margin of error in this recount exceeds the7
13774	13774	incredibly narrow margin of victory. And as the8
13775	13775	court in Connolly versus Secretary of The9
13776	13776	Commonwealth stated, if the margin of conjecture10
13777	13777	exceeds the margin of victory, there must be a11
13778	13778	new election.12
13779	13779	We respectfully ask this Committee to13
13780	13780	exercise all of its authorities to conduct an14
13781	13781	examination of the handful of challenged ballots,15
13782	13782	investigate fully those instances in which16
13783	13783	election officials lack discretion, and that17
13784	13784	those failures have resulted in conjecture of the18
13785	13785	vote count. And after such review, determine19
13786	13786	that Representative -- recommend -- determine20
13787	13787	that Representative Mirra won the election, or in21
13788	13788	the alternative, find that the election was a22
13789	13789	tie, the seat is vacant and recommend a new23
13790	13790	election to the full House. Thank you, Mr.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13791	13791	781-383-1188 15
13792	13792	Chair.1
13793	13793	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Thank you, Counsel.2
13794	13794	I know there was communications between the3
13795	13795	Special Committee and counsel and candidates4
13796	13796	where we said, either Committee -- or I'm sorry,5
13797	13797	counsel or the candidate can speak, but6
13798	13798	obviously, we'd like to afford the opportunity to7
13799	13799	the candidates themselves if they want to make8
13800	13800	any further points. Otherwise, we can begin9
13801	13801	questioning.10
13802	13802	But Representative Mirra, if you care to11
13803	13803	address the Special Committee with anything12
13804	13804	further, not to put you on the spot, because I13
13805	13805	know we said it was an either/or. So we14
13806	13806	apologize for that miscommunication, but15
13807	13807	certainly we want to afford the opportunity if16
13808	13808	you do wish to offer any further thoughts.17
13809	13809	REPRESENTATIVE MIRRA: No, I'll only add,18
13810	13810	Mr. Chairman, that I'm just thankful that we have19
13811	13811	this opportunity. You know, we tried to make our20
13812	13812	statement heard in court. All we wanted was a21
13813	13813	hearing, all we wanted was a chance, all we22
13814	13814	wanted was to have someone look at those23
13815	13815	contested ballots, make a reasonable24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13816	13816	781-383-1188 16
13817	13817	determination. And believe it or not, we could1
13818	13818	not get our day in court.2
13819	13819	The judges would not hear it, because3
13820	13820	they determined it was out of their jurisdiction.4
13821	13821	I'm not sure if that's true or not, but5
13822	13822	regardless of whether that's true or not, I'm6
13823	13823	just very thankful that the Speaker allowed this7
13824	13824	to happen, and that you're hearing this. And I8
13825	13825	implore you to look at the evidence, read it9
13826	13826	carefully, and please, please do look at those10
13827	13827	contested ballots. I think it'll reveal a lot,11
13828	13828	and regardless of what you decide, you know,12
13829	13829	we'll accept the determination of this Committee13
13830	13830	and move on.14
13831	13831	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Thank you,15
13832	13832	Representative Mirra, as well. So we've got some16
13833	13833	questions on -- on the submissions as well as the17
13834	13834	presentation here today.18
13835	13835	Just starting with the jurisdiction19
13836	13836	issue and the jurisdiction of this Special20
13837	13837	Committee, what is your position on -- on the21
13838	13838	significance of the Certificate of Summons sent22
13839	13839	to All Representatives-Elect by the Governor and23
13840	13840	the Secretary of the Commonwealth?24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13841	13841	781-383-1188 17
13842	13842	MR. SULLIVAN: Prior to the first1
13843	13843	Wednesday in the January, when the House was2
13844	13844	called into session?3
13845	13845	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Yes.4
13846	13846	MR. SULLIVAN: We believe -- we this --5
13847	13847	we take the same position as the Secretary of the6
13848	13848	Commonwealth, that the -- the courts retained7
13849	13849	jurisdiction under state law up until the time --8
13850	13850	up until the time when the House is called into9
13851	13851	session. And even once the House is in session,10
13852	13852	I think as the Secretary of the Commonwealth11
13853	13853	indicated, it's unclear as to whether or not the12
13854	13854	courts continued to have jurisdiction.13
13855	13855	I think it's clear that the remedies14
13856	13856	that are available to the court after the House15
13857	13857	has taken jurisdiction and created this16
13858	13858	Committee, might be a lot different than what the17
13859	13859	remedies would be available to the court prior to18
13860	13860	that happening. So we -- we understand and19
13861	13861	respect that this body, the House, and this20
13862	13862	Committee in particular, has the right to -- to21
13863	13863	do what it's doing under the Constitution.22
13864	13864	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: So under -- under23
13865	13865	the Constitution, I guess as a follow-up, and24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13866	13866	781-383-1188 18
13867	13867	this has been decided, I think, fairly1
13868	13868	consistently by a majority of the House in the2
13869	13869	past, once that certificate issues doesn't it3
13870	13870	become the jurisdiction of the House to decide4
13871	13871	the qualifications of its members, given that5
13872	13872	you've had the Governor and the Secretary and6
13873	13873	registrars confirm or affirm to the body that7
13874	13874	this is who we deem to be the duly elected,8
13875	13875	doesn't that then become the constitutional9
13876	13876	prerogative of this Special Committee, or10
13877	13877	certainly of the House, to determine what that's11
13878	13878	-- that actual result is?12
13879	13879	MR. SULLIVAN: I think that's accurate in13
13880	13880	terms of the cases I've read to date, the14
13881	13881	jurisdiction rests here. Having said that, I15
13882	13882	don't want to waive any rights that my client may16
13883	13883	have within the courts. I respect the fact that17
13884	13884	the remedies that are available to the court at18
13885	13885	this point in time are far more limited than the19
13886	13886	remedies they had prior to the House taking20
13887	13887	jurisdiction over it.21
13888	13888	And the reason why I don't want to22
13889	13889	waive, is because I think that the court in this23
13890	13890	particular case has raised a serious24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13891	13891	781-383-1188 19
13892	13892	constitutional question as to when the rights of1
13893	13893	the courts -- the -- the court no longer has any2
13894	13894	rights to hear a matter.3
13895	13895	The court dismissed it based on subject4
13896	13896	matter jurisdiction. I think the court dismissed5
13897	13897	it at least prematurely in terms of subject6
13898	13898	matter jurisdiction. So whether or not it7
13899	13899	becomes important for us to continue to advance,8
13900	13900	you know, that point in time, because I'm not9
13901	13901	convinced this will not be the last time.10
13902	13902	There might be a difference as to when11
13903	13903	the courts have exclusive jurisdiction to take12
13904	13904	certain steps. And I think that would be an13
13905	13905	important question for the courts to address or14
13906	13906	the legislature. The legislature could make it15
13907	13907	clear when it wants to divest the courts of its16
13908	13908	-- of the jurisdiction under the -- the statute17
13909	13909	in terms of hearing contested election.18
13910	13910	So I think I'm in agreement with the in19
13911	13911	terms of what you said. Mr. Chairman, but I just20
13912	13912	want to reserve any rights that Mr. Mirra has21
13913	13913	regarding that issue in terms of jurisdiction.22
13914	13914	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Well, I -- I guess23
13915	13915	that begs the question then, given what24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13916	13916	781-383-1188 20
13917	13917	Representative Mirra had just said to us, that do1
13918	13918	you -- do you think that this Committee's2
13919	13919	decision is determinative of this race, or is3
13920	13920	there an intention to proceed with judicial4
13921	13921	remedies?5
13922	13922	MR. SULLIVAN: I apologize if I am6
13923	13923	unclear. I don't think the court has any ability7
13924	13924	to overturn the decision that this body renders.8
13925	13925	So that would not be the -- kind of the basis of9
13926	13926	continued litigation here, because I think there10
13927	13927	is clear case law that indicates the courts do11
13928	13928	not have the authority to do that.12
13929	13929	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Is there a13
13930	13930	contention that there was any fraud in this14
13931	13931	election?15
13932	13932	MR. SULLIVAN: You know, obviously --16
13933	13933	fraud, no. I think, irregularities. I think that17
13934	13934	there's clear evidence that non-discretionary18
13935	13935	functions were not complied with. I think, the19
13936	13936	best example of that is the importance of20
13937	13937	matching signatures. As kind of mail-in ballots21
13938	13938	continue to escalate, there is always a risk of22
13939	13939	fraud and we're not suggesting fraud, but the23
13940	13940	legislature has made it clear that it's24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13941	13941	781-383-1188 21
13942	13942	mandatory. It's not discretionary, it's1
13943	13943	mandatory that you compare signatures to ensure2
13944	13944	that the ballot that's being presented, the3
13945	13945	signature on the outside of the envelope matches4
13946	13946	the signature in the possession of the5
13947	13947	municipality.6
13948	13948	Our point is, Representative Mirra7
13949	13949	witnessed the opening of about 100 mail-in8
13950	13950	ballots in Ipswich, and it was very apparent to9
13951	13951	him there was no comparison of the signatures and10
13952	13952	the envelopes against anything at the11
13953	13953	municipality. The only verification that seemed12
13954	13954	to be complied with was, was there a signature,13
13955	13955	and had the person already voted. Those are the14
13956	13956	only two things that appeared to be tested.15
13957	13957	The legislature has imposed on the16
13958	13958	clerks to compare the signatures; that wasn't17
13959	13959	done. That does provide a risk. And in the18
13960	13960	cases that we've identified, the courts indicate19
13961	13961	what is non-discretionary, this is20
13962	13962	non-discretionary. And it's non-discretionary21
13963	13963	for the purposes of to avoid and minimize fraud.22
13964	13964	And we don't know whether or not there23
13965	13965	was fraud, but Mr. Mirra, would testify that24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13966	13966	781-383-1188 22
13967	13967	there were at least 12 of the mail-in ballots in1
13968	13968	Ipswich where it was very apparent to him when he2
13969	13969	finally had the opportunity to compare the3
13970	13970	signatures on the envelope with a signature at4
13971	13971	the municipality, that they didn't match.5
13972	13972	And that -- those ballots were already6
13973	13973	opened, and then commingled, so there's no ability7
13974	13974	for the courts, nor for this body, to determine8
13975	13975	who they voted for, and it gets to the issue of9
13976	13976	conjecture. And when the margin of conjecture10
13977	13977	exceeds the margin of victory, the courts have11
13978	13978	said, that's the time in which to order a new12
13979	13979	election.13
13980	13980	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: So I -- I think we14
13981	13981	need some clarity here. I'm hearing from15
13982	13982	Representative Mirra that you're asking us to --16
13983	13983	to determine contested ballots, not throwing out17
13984	13984	ballots and ordering a new election.18
13985	13985	Which one is it or is it both?19
13986	13986	MR. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry -- I'm sorry,20
13987	13987	Mr. Chairman --21
13988	13988	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: It seemed to me that22
13989	13989	you're just stating that we should order a new23
13990	13990	election based on these alleged 12 ballots.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
13991	13991	781-383-1188 23
13992	13992	MR. SULLIVAN: Well --1
13993	13993	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Which -- which is2
13994	13994	it? What's the remedy you're asking?3
13995	13995	MR. SULLIVAN: Well, if you look at4
13996	13996	the Ipswich ballots, and you made the5
13997	13997	determination that were originally made in terms6
13998	13998	of those ballots, that those two votes were for7
13999	13999	Mr. Mirra -- Representative Mirra, that it8
14000	14000	changes the outcome of the race from one vote9
14001	14001	deficit to a one vote margin of victory. That10
14002	14002	says to me that the election should be decided by11
14003	14003	the House in favor of Mr. Mirra when you look at12
14004	14004	the contested ballots.13
14005	14005	If you look at the contested ballots,14
14006	14006	and you look at the other issues that are being15
14007	14007	raised, and you make a determination that you16
14008	14008	can't determine the outcome of the election17
14009	14009	because of conjecture, then that's where the18
14010	14010	courts say you should order a new election.19
14011	14011	So I'm not suggesting you -- you should20
14012	14012	look at the ballots and make an informed decision21
14013	14013	consistent to the will of the voters, and I think22
14014	14014	you'll determine that in those contested ballots,23
14015	14015	they should have gone to Representative Mirra.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14016	14016	781-383-1188 24
14017	14017	And had they, then Mr. Mirra would -- would have1
14018	14018	been declared the victor.2
14019	14019	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: I just -- I have a3
14020	14020	question on some of these ballots that are in4
14021	14021	question in, and Representative Mirra, I want to5
14022	14022	thank you for your service, thus far to the6
14023	14023	Commonwealth.7
14024	14024	The -- you're talking about contested8
14025	14025	ballots, and a number of contested ballots and9
14026	14026	inconsistencies, but yet, there was only two10
14027	14027	ballots that were brought to court, right? Two11
14028	14028	ballots that are now being questioned, or you're12
14029	14029	asking us to look at two ballots? Please13
14030	14030	clarify that for me.14
14031	14031	MR. SULLIVAN: All -- I apologize. All15
14032	14032	the ballots, when we had the emergency hearing16
14033	14033	before the court, the court instructed all the17
14034	14034	town clerks to present all the contested ballots18
14035	14035	to the courts, including those envelopes we were19
14036	14036	questioning the signatures.20
14037	14037	So all those were ordered to be21
14038	14038	delivered to the court, not just the two. They22
14039	14039	were all delivered to the court. The court was23
14040	14040	struggling with do I have enough time to get all24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14041	14041	781-383-1188 25
14042	14042	of this done? And we suggested, if you just look1
14043	14043	at the Ipswich ballots alone, you're going to see2
14044	14044	that there's a serious question about the outcome3
14045	14045	of the election. That should give you enough to4
14046	14046	pause the results to have a full hearing.5
14047	14047	The court never looked at those ballots,6
14048	14048	determined it did not have subject matter7
14049	14049	jurisdiction, and then sent all the ballots back.8
14050	14050	So all the ballots are back with the9
14051	14051	municipalities.10
14052	14052	So, we're not asking you to look only at11
14053	14053	the Ipswich ballots; we're asking to look at all12
14054	14054	the ballots. But our point to the court was, if13
14055	14055	you're concerned about expediency, you can14
14056	14056	quickly look at two ballots and make a15
14057	14057	determination as to whether or not it's a tie or16
14058	14058	Representative Mirra won.17
14059	14059	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: So you were asking18
14060	14060	those two ballots to be an example of other19
14061	14061	things you may have been looking for in the other20
14062	14062	ballots? So you weren't saying if we just use21
14063	14063	these two ballots, we can turn this election22
14064	14064	because that's --23
14065	14065	MR. SULLIVAN: Well, we did say it.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14066	14066	781-383-1188 26
14067	14067	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: -- kind of what it1
14068	14068	looks like it.2
14069	14069	MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I mean, we did say3
14070	14070	that if you just look at those two ballots, the4
14071	14071	outcome of the election would be different. If5
14072	14072	those were the only two contested issues by6
14073	14073	Representative Mirra, and if you looked at those7
14074	14074	two ballots, and Mr. Mirra is right, that they8
14075	14075	were wrongly called for his opponent, then it9
14076	14076	does change the outcome of the elections.10
14077	14077	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: Okay.11
14078	14078	MR. SULLIVAN: Our point was this: we're12
14079	14079	asking for the court to intervene pretty quickly.13
14080	14080	And we said, if you just look at those two14
14081	14081	ballots, you'd have confidence that intervening15
14082	14082	and staying the election or the swearing in would16
14083	14083	make sense.17
14084	14084	And the Secretary indicated to the18
14085	14085	court, you know, the court can order the19
14086	14086	Secretary not to deliver the -- the results to20
14087	14087	the House. The court never got that far, because21
14088	14088	the court -- and again, we think mistakenly, said22
14089	14089	it does not have jurisdiction.23
14090	14090	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: And you have24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14091	14091	781-383-1188 27
14092	14092	further remedies in the court that you're1
14093	14093	pursuing?2
14094	14094	MR. SULLIVAN: And further remedies in3
14095	14095	the -- the House, the -- you know, the remedies4
14096	14096	-- you know, the court believed it was with the5
14097	14097	House and this Committee. And thankfully, the6
14098	14098	House and -- the speaker in the House formed the7
14099	14099	Special Committee.8
14100	14100	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Thank you.9
14101	14101	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: So yes. Just10
14102	14102	picking up on those two Counsel, the -- can an11
14103	14103	over vote happen?12
14104	14104	MR. SULLIVAN: Sure. Absolutely.13
14105	14105	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Where multiple marks14
14106	14106	are made, and then it's a call for the15
14107	14107	registrars, right, this is what they do? They16
14108	14108	determine when they examine the ballots whether17
14109	14109	an over vote occurred?18
14110	14110	MR. SULLIVAN: Sure. Absolutely.19
14111	14111	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: And that could be20
14112	14112	stray marks, or extra marks, or double votes.21
14113	14113	Did a protest vote happen?22
14114	14114	MR. SULLIVAN: What do you mean by a23
14115	14115	protest?24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14116	14116	781-383-1188 28
14117	14117	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: By adding in people1
14118	14118	that may not be qualified?2
14119	14119	MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I -- well, yeah, you3
14120	14120	know --4
14121	14121	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Imaginary --5
14122	14122	MR. SULLIVAN: I've been in recounts,6
14123	14123	you've probably seen them as well where they7
14124	14124	identified Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse as the8
14125	14125	candidate. Sure. I mean, that does happen when9
14126	14126	people vote for somebody who's not in the ballot.10
14127	14127	It's a write-in, but maybe not a, you know, a11
14128	14128	true person. It can be described as a protest.12
14129	14129	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: And so just13
14130	14130	considering what you've presented to us on what14
14131	14131	we'll call the Trump ballot?15
14132	14132	MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.16
14133	14133	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: And how do you17
14134	14134	distinguish that from the Cole v. Tucker Case?18
14135	14135	MR. SULLIVAN: Which case?19
14136	14136	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: The Cole versus20
14137	14137	Tucker, where they said an individual was signed21
14138	14138	-- trying to set up his own will against the22
14139	14139	rules for voting. And he was attempting to make23
14140	14140	a disorderly expression of his preference. And24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14141	14141	781-383-1188 29
14142	14142	they threw that out for not following the rules1
14143	14143	and trying to stage, essentially, a protest on2
14144	14144	his ballot.3
14145	14145	How do you jibe that with what the4
14146	14146	registrar has determined to be the intent here?5
14147	14147	MR. SULLIVAN: And I apologize, I'm not6
14148	14148	familiar with the case, but I will become7
14149	14149	familiar. And if I have anything to add to it, I8
14150	14150	request the Committee to allow me to supplement9
14151	14151	my response on that question.10
14152	14152	But to describe it, as I understood it11
14153	14153	-- I was not there, I didn't witness the12
14154	14154	examination of this ballot, but as I as I13
14155	14155	understood it, this ballot had the name Donald14
14156	14156	Trump written in on the write-in line on a number15
14157	14157	of spots in the course of the ballot. In some16
14158	14158	instances, also, where there was a Republican17
14159	14159	filled in the bubble for the Republican18
14160	14160	candidate.19
14161	14161	I understood in the race for state20
14162	14162	representative, Mr. Mirra, Representative Mirra21
14163	14163	was listed first, his opponent was listed right22
14164	14164	below him, and then there's a place for23
14165	14165	write-ins, and Mr. Donald Trump's name was24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14166	14166	781-383-1188 30
14167	14167	written it.1
14168	14168	I know that there was a pleading to2
14169	14169	suggest that the bubble was completed for Donald3
14170	14170	Trump as well. I'm not aware of that. And if4
14171	14171	there was a bubble completed for Donald Trump and5
14172	14172	a bubble completed for Mr. Mirra, I would agree6
14173	14173	with you, that would be an over vote. I7
14174	14174	understood that the bubble was not filled in.8
14175	14175	And even if you have a write-in, if9
14176	14176	there's no indication that the person voted for10
14177	14177	the write-in, consistent with, I think it was the11
14178	14178	O'Brien Case, which was a district attorney race,12
14179	14179	where they use stickers, and the court said a13
14180	14180	sticker is no different than a third or fourth14
14181	14181	person listed on a ballot. And it's not the15
14182	14182	sticker that determines the over vote, it's where16
14183	14183	the person actually elects. So somebody could17
14184	14184	write in Joseph Biden, but not vote for him, and18
14185	14185	vote for somebody else.19
14186	14186	And it's our contention that Donald --20
14187	14187	we concur that Donald Trump was written in as a21
14188	14188	write-in, but the vote was actually for22
14189	14189	Representative Mirra. It was -- it was called23
14190	14190	for Representative Mirra at the table. And then,24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14191	14191	781-383-1188 31
14192	14192	it went to the registrars because it was1
14193	14193	protested -- objected to by Representative2
14194	14194	Mirra's opponent and the registrars overruled it.3
14195	14195	So all we're asking is to what look at that4
14196	14196	ballot.5
14197	14197	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Are you saying that6
14198	14198	overrule was unreasonable?7
14199	14199	MR. SULLIVAN: Again, I didn't see the8
14200	14200	ballot, the way it was described to me, I would9
14201	14201	say it was absolutely unreasonable if it was10
14202	14202	simply overruled because somebody wrote in Donald11
14203	14203	Trump's name, but didn't vote for Donald Trump,12
14204	14204	then it's inconsistent to the O'Brien Case.13
14205	14205	You can write in four names as14
14206	14206	write-ins. But I could still vote for you, Mr.15
14207	14207	Chair, as the other representative, and my vote16
14208	14208	for you is the vote that should count, not the17
14209	14209	fact that I wrote in four names under you.18
14210	14210	That's immaterial according to the O'Brien Case.19
14211	14211	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: The registrars20
14212	14212	disagreed, right? The registrars said it was a21
14213	14213	over vote, and awarded a no vote or a cancelled22
14214	14214	vote.23
14215	14215	MR. SULLIVAN: That's the way it was24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14216	14216	781-383-1188 32
14217	14217	ultimately determined to be. It was a vote1
14218	14218	taken away from Representative Mirra, and not2
14219	14219	counted for anybody.3
14220	14220	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: You cited in your4
14221	14221	papers that this is an error of law. And then5
14222	14222	you cited to Helligan and a few other cases, and6
14223	14223	said that they shall be awarded to the certain7
14224	14224	candidate in these instances.8
14225	14225	That's a guide, right? You understand9
14226	14226	that the Secretary's guide is just that? You say10
14227	14227	you call it a guide. That's not a shall11
14228	14228	situation, right? Each registrar, each case12
14229	14229	falls and rises based on its individual parts of13
14230	14230	the ballot that they're reviewing.14
14231	14231	You'd agree with that?15
14232	14232	MR. SULLIVAN: I do. But the -- as the16
14233	14233	legislature has provided for the courts, they17
14234	14234	know a review of the ballots themselves have been18
14235	14235	protested. That they have a right to19
14236	14236	independently ultimately make the determination.20
14237	14237	And I think this --21
14238	14238	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Fair enough. I'm22
14239	14239	not talking about the extent of the review. I'm23
14240	14240	asking that -- those aren't shalls, those are24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14241	14241	781-383-1188 33
14242	14242	instructed, right? Those aren't requirements?1
14243	14243	MR. SULLIVAN: Correct.2
14244	14244	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: So the O'Brien3
14245	14245	Case is instructive, it's not determinative on4
14246	14246	this; fair to say?5
14247	14247	MR. SULLIVAN: Well, O'Brien, I think6
14248	14248	it's -- I think is determinative.7
14249	14249	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: For the House?8
14250	14250	MR. SULLIVAN: Well, in terms if the9
14251	14251	House wants to follow those -- I -- listen, the10
14252	14252	House as you've described, has broad11
14253	14253	constitutional authority, right? The House has12
14254	14254	been guided by the legal principles that have13
14255	14255	developed in terms of election law.14
14256	14256	So in terms of the courts, I would say,15
14257	14257	it's precedential value that if we were before16
14258	14258	the courts, we would argue that the SJC has17
14259	14259	already determined that the write-in, absent18
14260	14260	something more, is not an over vote.19
14261	14261	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Thank you, Mr.20
14262	14262	Chairman. In Ipswich, no explanation was offered21
14263	14263	as to where the extra votes came from?22
14264	14264	MR. SULLIVAN: None -- none that I'm23
14265	14265	aware of.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14266	14266	781-383-1188 34
14267	14267	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: No conjecture about1
14268	14268	-- well, we think this might have happened?2
14269	14269	Because if we look at the vote totals from prior3
14270	14270	to the recount to after the recount, it was 144
14271	14271	ballots in Ipswich overall, and almost -- almost5
14272	14272	de minimis throughout the rest of the district.6
14273	14273	So that raises a big question. Was7
14274	14274	there ever any attempt to check -- as I remember,8
14275	14275	having been an election official in my time, you9
14276	14276	have the check-in book, you check in, get your10
14277	14277	ballot, vote, you check out. Before we even11
14278	14278	started counting, we would tally the check-in12
14279	14279	book verses the checkout book.13
14280	14280	Was there any reconciliation that you're14
14281	14281	aware of with the ballots versus the check-in15
14282	14282	book, checkout book?16
14283	14283	MR. SULLIVAN: I'm not aware of that, and17
14284	14284	I don't think Representative Mirra was --18
14285	14285	REPRESENTATIVE MIRRA: No, I'm not aware19
14286	14286	of that either.20
14287	14287	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Okay. I'm just21
14288	14288	curious because that really raises the question,22
14289	14289	and having been there, obviously all the ballots23
14290	14290	were tallied up that day. And they were put on a24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14291	14291	781-383-1188 35
14292	14292	stage, and then I think before any recounting1
14293	14293	started, there was a break for lunch. And then,2
14294	14294	the recount started increasing 1, 2, 3 and 4.3
14295	14295	And then, obviously, here I think it4
14296	14296	became aware, that at the conclusion of the5
14297	14297	recount that there was this excess number. I6
14298	14298	don't think that the excess number of ballots was7
14299	14299	made clear before recount started with ballots.8
14300	14300	I don't think it became aware to everybody until9
14301	14301	the end. If you have any information on that --10
14302	14302	I think that the -- the debate11
14303	14303	back-and-forth with the Chair was helpful, but I12
14304	14304	think it raises the point that I think we, in13
14305	14305	fact, do need to see the challenged ballots. And14
14306	14306	I understand that, you know, you had a, let's15
14307	14307	say, a list of issues you thought raised16
14308	14308	questions about this election.17
14309	14309	But you basically said to the court that18
14310	14310	if you only have time to look at these, which we19
14311	14311	think of the most bright line, if you will, of20
14312	14312	the issues, in which case they would change the21
14313	14313	outcome either to a tie or to a one vote margin.22
14314	14314	And it seems to me, and I agree with the23
14315	14315	Chair, I don't think -- I haven't heard any24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14316	14316	781-383-1188 36
14317	14317	information or discussion or allegations of1
14318	14318	intentional fraud. But that and changing2
14319	14319	election laws, and they've changed quite3
14320	14320	dramatically the last couple cycles, we put an4
14321	14321	increasing burden on our clerks and their staff5
14322	14322	to do work.6
14323	14323	And now, we're kind of into a quiet year7
14324	14324	in 2023, and most towns may have a municipal8
14325	14325	election, maybe a couple of town meetings. And9
14326	14326	before we know it, we'll be into 2024, and10
14327	14327	there'll be the town election and -- and town11
14328	14328	meetings, but they will also be faced with the12
14329	14329	presidential primary, state primary, and13
14330	14330	presidential election and they'll be right back14
14331	14331	at it.15
14332	14332	And sometimes they're under trained,16
14333	14333	understaffed, overworked, under-resourced. And17
14334	14334	that only heightens the possibility of human18
14335	14335	unintentional error. And I think, and then19
14336	14336	sometimes the decisions that are made in the ways20
14337	14337	recounts are handled at a municipal level, only21
14338	14338	potentially compound the possibility for error.22
14339	14339	And as we've said, as that as the margin23
14340	14340	for error grows, it makes it real challenging to24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14341	14341	781-383-1188 37
14342	14342	make sure that the will of the voters is adhered1
14343	14343	to, but I think that's what you have to do. But2
14344	14344	I absolutely think that we need to look at the at3
14345	14345	least those challenged ballots. Because,4
14346	14346	frankly, you weren't given the opportunity, or a5
14347	14347	judge didn't give you the opportunity to -- to6
14348	14348	present and make a decision on it.7
14349	14349	And I do think that is partially due to8
14350	14350	the fact that we had the latest election you9
14351	14351	possibly can. November 8th election as opposed10
14352	14352	to a November 2nd election, let's say, and that11
14353	14353	-- that the calendar conspired against you, if12
14354	14354	you will.13
14355	14355	But, you know, this is -- this is the14
14356	14356	closest an election can be, and the fact that15
14357	14357	we're faced with two of these in one session, and16
14358	14358	then the last time was a decade ago, and the time17
14359	14359	before that was a decade before that, I think18
14360	14360	highlights that we're potentially going to be19
14361	14361	faced with more of these going forward in light20
14362	14362	of the change in election law.21
14363	14363	And I also think one of the important22
14364	14364	things that we as a body, because there's two23
14365	14365	things is the -- the issues related to this case24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14366	14366	781-383-1188 38
14367	14367	and the other case are just some of the1
14368	14368	underlying discussions that we have to have about2
14369	14369	elections. And what's that you mentioned the3
14370	14370	standard of signatures, even if we determined4
14371	14371	that that's not relevant here, if different5
14372	14372	clerks in different towns use a different6
14373	14373	standard in checking signatures, that can have a7
14374	14374	very serious impact on the outcome of elections8
14375	14375	that are, you know, district based.9
14376	14376	Maybe within a community it won't make a10
14377	14377	big deal on a municipal town selectman race, but11
14378	14378	then it may have. And we need to make sure that12
14379	14379	there is a -- a standard or practice that is13
14380	14380	adhered to by all clerks in doing that.14
14381	14381	And I think that comes with training and15
14382	14382	oversight and resources for our town clerks who16
14383	14383	we've asked to do more and more and more, and17
14384	14384	it's not as if during election season they get to18
14385	14385	shut down from all their other responsibilities.19
14386	14386	It's not as if nobody dies, nobody wants a dog20
14387	14387	license, nobody wants a fishing license, nobody21
14388	14388	wants to get married, and nobody has a child, all22
14389	14389	those responsibilities entail. So I think I've23
14390	14390	gone on too long.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14391	14391	781-383-1188 39
14392	14392	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: No, not at all.1
14393	14393	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Get a few things2
14394	14394	up there. Thanks.3
14395	14395	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Just a couple legal4
14396	14396	loose ends there, that we wanted to tie up with.5
14397	14397	You disagree with the decisions that the6
14398	14398	registrar has made in certain ballots, but you're7
14399	14399	not alleging a due process deprivation by the8
14400	14400	recount, right? Both sides were represented by9
14401	14401	counsel, both sides had the opportunity to10
14402	14402	object, both sides were heard fully, they weren't11
14403	14403	shut out, and both sides then listened to the12
14404	14404	decision by the registers at that time.13
14405	14405	Is that fair to say?14
14406	14406	MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah. I think that's fair15
14407	14407	to say regarding the contested ballots, Mr.16
14408	14408	Chairman. I think the issue concerning the17
14409	14409	matching of the signature on the envelope, and18
14410	14410	the actual signature at the municipality. I19
14411	14411	don't think that there was any opportunity for20
14412	14412	Representative Mirra. We would challenge that,21
14413	14413	based on the way it was set up at that moment in22
14414	14414	time.23
14415	14415	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Again, those would24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14416	14416	781-383-1188 40
14417	14417	be two different remedies, right? You're looking1
14418	14418	at certain votes, which you want to --2
14419	14419	MR. SULLIVAN: Before the vote, even --3
14420	14420	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: No, but that's -- a4
14421	14421	remedy for that would be ordering a new election,5
14422	14422	right?6
14423	14423	MR. SULLIVAN: Correct. That's correct,7
14424	14424	yes.8
14425	14425	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: And it's -- I think9
14426	14426	it's fair to say, it's been the position the10
14427	14427	House we don't have the authority to do that11
14428	14428	absent a vacancy?12
14429	14429	MR. SULLIVAN: You have to order a13
14430	14430	vacancy in the office, right? Yeah.14
14431	14431	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Would have to15
14432	14432	declare that there was no election completed.16
14433	14433	MR. SULLIVAN: Right.17
14434	14434	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: On the -- you had18
14435	14435	mentioned that typically spoiled ballots aren't19
14436	14436	unspoiled. It happens, right?20
14437	14437	MR. SULLIVAN: I'm not aware that spoiled21
14438	14438	ballots get unspoiled, but somebody could22
14439	14439	certainly correct me on that point.23
14440	14440	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Well, you had cited24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14441	14441	781-383-1188 41
14442	14442	to the Code of Mass Regulations to support your1
14443	14443	proposition that they shouldn't be unspoiled2
14444	14444	ever. There's a follow-up code that requires3
14445	14445	that all spoiled and unused ballots shall be4
14446	14446	counted and determination shall be made which --5
14447	14447	whether each sealed absentee ballot and envelope6
14448	14448	rejected as defective should have been rejected7
14449	14449	or accepted.8
14450	14450	How do you jibe those two positions?9
14451	14451	MR. SULLIVAN: In terms of the absentee10
14452	14452	ballot, be identified as a spoiled, which is11
14453	14453	different than other ballots --12
14454	14454	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: All spoileds are to13
14455	14455	be counted, right?14
14456	14456	MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.15
14457	14457	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Under this code, all16
14458	14458	spoiled and unused ballots shall be counted and17
14459	14459	then, determinations be made.18
14460	14460	MR. SULLIVAN: I'll take another look at19
14461	14461	that, Mr. Chairman, and see whether or not I have20
14462	14462	further clarification on that point.21
14463	14463	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Anything further? 22
14464	14464	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: No, I wasn't going23
14465	14465	to as a question just yet, but will follow up.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14466	14466	781-
14467	14467	383-1188 42
14468	14468	MR. SULLIVAN: Can we make just one1
14469	14469	additional point before we step aside here. And2
14470	14470	I think Representative Jones raised it, in terms3
14471	14471	of the timeliness of the election, that the4
14472	14472	recount in this particular race took place in the5
14473	14473	first week of December.6
14474	14474	Which when I look back at other7
14475	14475	recounts, it's a couple of weeks later. In most8
14476	14476	instances that I know -- and Mr. Mirra has been9
14477	14477	criticized by his opponent's counsel for the time10
14478	14478	in which he filed the complaint in the Superior11
14479	14479	Court challenge in the election.12
14480	14480	Mr. Mirra was waiting for the minutes13
14481	14481	from the town clerks to make sure that he had a14
14482	14482	wholesome and complete analysis of the votes that15
14483	14483	were being challenged by the clerk. I think the16
14484	14484	Rowley minutes came in the afternoon or evening17
14485	14485	of the 21st of December, and that's when the18
14486	14486	complaint was filed.19
14487	14487	Based on the statute, it clearly was20
14488	14488	filed well within the timeline of the statute.21
14489	14489	And at least, according to the Secretary of the22
14490	14490	Commonwealth, which we agree with, well within23
14491	14491	the time that the court still had jurisdiction24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14492	14492	781-383-1188 43
14493	14493	over the matter. So and I know that is not going1
14494	14494	to weigh in in terms of what this committee does.2
14495	14495	But I did notice it was in some of the pleadings3
14496	14496	that had been submitted, so --4
14497	14497	REPRESENTATIVE MIRRA: Mr. Chairman, if I5
14498	14498	could just add something quickly in closing. I6
14499	14499	just want to speak briefly. I don't want anyone7
14500	14500	to think that this was a "stolen election ".8
14501	14501	Those are very inflammatory words, especially9
14502	14502	these days. I don't think there was any kind of10
14503	14503	massive fraud involved; there was no conspiracy11
14504	14504	involved. There was no nefarious intent here.12
14505	14505	When you find 14 extra ballots, honestly Mr.13
14506	14506	Chairman, I think it's a simple matter of human14
14507	14507	error, and I don't want anyone to come out of15
14508	14508	this thinking that the election was "stolen. "16
14509	14509	The voting machines were not hacked with17
14510	14510	or tampered with. Those machines are amazingly18
14511	14511	accurate and, you know, at a time when the trust19
14512	14512	and credibility in our voting system is at all20
14513	14513	time lows, I want this to serve as an example21
14514	14514	where we're going to remedy -- we're going to22
14515	14515	remedy any kind of problems with our election23
14516	14516	system.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14517	14517	781-383-1188 44
14518	14518	But I don't want anyone come away from1
14519	14519	this thinking that it was "stolen. " I think it2
14520	14520	was held fairly. I think every town clerk did3
14521	14521	their best to hold a fair and open election. And4
14522	14522	I think any of the issues that we brought up5
14523	14523	today, honestly, are simply a matter of human6
14524	14524	error.7
14525	14525	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Thank you,8
14526	14526	Representative Mirra, I appreciate your grounds.9
14527	14527	MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.10
14528	14528	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Now, we welcome up11
14529	14529	Ms. Kassner and counsel. I'd ask you to identify12
14530	14530	yourselves for the record, and then the floor is13
14531	14531	yours.14
14532	14532	MR. MCDONOUGH: Good morning. I'm Gerald15
14533	14533	McDonough, I'm here representing Kristin Kassner.16
14534	14534	MS. KASSNER: Rep elect17
14535	14535	Kristin Kassner.18
14536	14536	MR. MCDONOUGH: May I proceed?19
14537	14537	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Please.20
14538	14538	MR. MCDONOUGH: If I can, I -- I'd like21
14539	14539	to make a few brief remarks, and -- and then let22
14540	14540	Ms. Kassner say a few words as well. And -- and23
14541	14541	then I'll reserve my response to all the factual24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14542	14542	781-383-1188 45
14543	14543	and legal allegations that my bother counsel1
14544	14544	mentioned after Ms. Kassner is done, or maybe in2
14545	14545	the course of questioning from the3
14546	14546	representatives.4
14547	14547	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Sure. Counsel, if5
14548	14548	we could just ask you to pull the microphone a6
14549	14549	little closer, so we can --7
14550	14550	MR. MCDONOUGH: Okay. So as initial8
14551	14551	matter, I just want to thank this committee for9
14552	14552	convening this -- this hearing. And I especially10
14553	14553	want to thank the Speaker of the House, Ron11
14554	14554	Mariano. I think this has been handled12
14555	14555	completely appropriately.13
14556	14556	I think this is -- you know, even14
14557	14557	though, you know, we had a lot of angst among our15
14558	14558	supporters about seating Mr. Mirra as a holdover,16
14559	14559	but that's -- the Constitution requires that.17
14560	14560	There's no -- this isn't a bag job, there's no18
14561	14561	funny business going on the part of the19
14562	14562	legislature. We appreciate the care that you've20
14563	14563	shown in the process that you put into place.21
14564	14564	And I -- and I think also, it's22
14565	14565	important to note that in all the steps in the23
14566	14566	judicial process, we have maintained -- since24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14567	14567	781-383-1188 46
14568	14568	certification on December 14, we have taken the1
14569	14569	position that this matter is in the exclusive2
14570	14570	jurisdiction of the House. Now, had Mr. Mirra3
14571	14571	brought a lawsuit on December 9th after the4
14572	14572	recount, or on December 13th, or even maybe as5
14573	14573	late as December 14th, he could have made a6
14574	14574	change in that, but it didn't happen.7
14575	14575	For example, in the Alicea Case back in8
14576	14576	2011, there was no certification, and there was9
14577	14577	an existing lawsuit going on. So in that case, I10
14578	14578	think the Special Committee took a step back and11
14579	14579	waited to see what would happen, and in that case12
14580	14580	both individuals accepted the jurisdiction of the13
14581	14581	-- of the court. Mr. Alicea filed the complaint.14
14582	14582	Mr. Durant took -- filed a counterclaim, so that15
14583	14583	both -- both candidates were accepting the16
14584	14584	jurisdiction of the court, so I think that's17
14585	14585	quite different.18
14586	14586	But I think throughout this proceeding,19
14587	14587	in the judicial forum, we have prevailed at every20
14588	14588	step. We prevailed in Superior Court on the21
14589	14589	motion to dismiss the complaint and on opposition22
14590	14590	to the motion of preliminary injunction. We23
14591	14591	prevailed then in the Appeals Court, and we24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14592	14592	781-383-1188 47
14593	14593	prevailed in Superior Court.1
14594	14594	I think I'm ready to retire, having had2
14595	14595	so many victories in just one little legal3
14596	14596	proceeding. But, you know, it's quite clear that4
14597	14597	the judicial system has taken a look at this and5
14598	14598	has decided that this forum here, the House, is6
14599	14599	where this case should be resolved.7
14600	14600	We also want to thank -- we also thank8
14601	14601	Mr. Mirra for his service to the Commonwealth9
14602	14602	over the years as a State Representative. I had10
14603	14603	a brother who served in this distinguished body,11
14604	14604	and I know the difficulties and hardships that12
14605	14605	you-all go through. And I think we need to13
14606	14606	applaud Mr. Mirra for his service. I'm not14
14607	14607	asking for a loud applause.15
14608	14608	But -- and I also want to thank opposing16
14609	14609	counsel, Chris Amrhein, from that restaurant in17
14610	14610	South Boston, his family, and -- and Michael18
14611	14611	Sullivan, the former U.S. Attorney. You know,19
14612	14612	the -- these are -- are very, very good top of the20
14613	14613	line lawyers. They're zealous in their21
14614	14614	representation of their client. And it's the --22
14615	14615	it's a challenge, but they've also been extremely23
14616	14616	professional and courteous to me, and I24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14617	14617	781-383-1188 48
14618	14618	appreciate all of that.1
14619	14619	And I also want to thank the -- all the2
14620	14620	public employees and individuals who were3
14621	14621	involved in the recount. We had -- in each4
14622	14622	recount you have a Board of Registrars, who are5
14623	14623	unpaid, who make determinations. You have clerk,6
14624	14624	an assistant clerk from the individual town.7
14625	14625	You have municipal lawyers. You have8
14626	14626	people at -- at different tables, some of them9
14627	14627	are -- are municipal employees from that town,10
14628	14628	like Ipswich, some are clerks from other towns11
14629	14629	who come just to help out, and some are other12
14630	14630	wardens or clerks in the election process, and13
14631	14631	some are -- are just individual residents of the14
14632	14632	town who are volunteering.15
14633	14633	There's massive effort that needs to go16
14634	14634	in to run these recounts. And I think they did17
14635	14635	an extraordinary job. And we were there. I was18
14636	14636	at four different recounts myself. I personally19
14637	14637	reviewed some of the ballots that have been20
14638	14638	talked about here today. I argued above those21
14639	14639	ballots with opposing counsel, but there was22
14640	14640	opposing counsel on both sides.23
14641	14641	And I think that, you know, that the24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14642	14642	781-383-1188 49
14643	14643	clerks -- what I am a little disturbed about is,1
14644	14644	there is an -- in at least one of those2
14645	14645	affidavits that you received, there is some kind3
14646	14646	of criticism of the clerks there, and I just4
14647	14647	think it's unwarranted. I think the clerks do an5
14648	14648	outstanding job.6
14649	14649	And the fact that you see so many clerks7
14650	14650	when you're -- when you're in Ipswich, you see8
14651	14651	clerks from other communities in the area, who9
14652	14652	come by just to help out. The clerks are unsung10
14653	14653	heroes and heroines of our democratic system. And11
14654	14654	they deserve as much support and praise as we can12
14655	14655	give them. They're extraordinary.13
14656	14656	I appreciate the remarks that you made,14
14657	14657	Representative Jones, about the clerks. They are15
14658	14658	just invaluable resources. So I think -- I think16
14659	14659	I'm going to stop at that point, and then I'm17
14660	14660	going to turn it over to Kristin to make a few18
14661	14661	points.19
14662	14662	MS. KASSNER: Thank you. I certainly20
14663	14663	want to thank this committee, and the Chair,21
14664	14664	Speaker Mariano, the body, for bringing us here22
14665	14665	today after a long post election that brought us23
14666	14666	here. I also want to thank Jerry McDonough, he's24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14667	14667	781-383-1188 50
14668	14668	been wonderful, in certainly a process that we're1
14669	14669	not used to.-- not all of us have gone through,2
14670	14670	and many of us have actually not gone through and3
14671	14671	has been just a guiding light through this4
14672	14672	process, and again, here today.5
14673	14673	All of the volunteers, as mentioned, the6
14674	14674	volunteers at the recount, we alone had 1207
14675	14675	people that were volunteering at the different8
14676	14676	recounts managing and organizing that from the9
14677	14677	team. I want to thank all of them, some of them10
14678	14678	are here today. Thank you for being here. I11
14679	14679	also just wanted to say that I've had -- we've12
14680	14680	had full faith in the electoral process13
14681	14681	throughout this experience, and as well during14
14682	14682	the election and post-election, the recount, as15
14683	14683	well as here.16
14684	14684	I ran for this position, I've been17
14685	14685	working in municipal government for 20 years as a18
14686	14686	professional planner, really working to make our19
14687	14687	communities better for people and the20
14688	14688	environment. Our campaign was built protecting21
14689	14689	people, building a strong future, and protecting22
14690	14690	our freedoms and that will be my priority in the23
14691	14691	legislature, and after a year-long campaign, a24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14692	14692	781-383-1188 51
14693	14693	close election, a complicated recount, and some1
14694	14694	court proceedings, I'm ready to take on this new2
14695	14695	challenge.3
14696	14696	And I've continued to meet with4
14697	14697	constituents preparing for the legislation5
14698	14698	deadline at the end of next week to address6
14699	14699	really important issues that are facing both the7
14700	14700	Commonwealth as well as our community and our8
14701	14701	districts of the 2nd Essex, which includes9
14702	14702	Ipswich, Rowley, Newbury, Georgetown, and10
14703	14703	Topsfield -- Hamilton-Topsfield Precinct 1, and11
14704	14704	issues facing especially water infrastructure12
14705	14705	protection of the rivers, and the economy.13
14706	14706	And I hope that we will help you do14
14707	14707	everything that you need from us, and hope to --15
14708	14708	that we can get to an expeditious resolution so16
14709	14709	we can -- I can get to work to serve the great17
14710	14710	people of the 2nd Essex District. So, thank you18
14711	14711	again.19
14712	14712	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Counsel, do you have20
14713	14713	further? Thank you, Ms. Kassner.21
14714	14714	MR. MCDONOUGH: If it's appropriate for22
14715	14715	the committee, I would like to respond to the23
14716	14716	individual allegations that were made by my24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14717	14717	781-383-1188 52
14718	14718	brother counsel. I think there were four -- four1
14719	14719	general ones. There was the extra ballots in2
14720	14720	Ipswich, there was the spoiled ballots in Rowley,3
14721	14721	who was the individual ballot problems, alleged4
14722	14722	problems, and then, the mail-in signatures.5
14723	14723	And so let me deal first with the --6
14724	14724	with the absentee ballot signatures. Challenges7
14725	14725	to absentee ballots, like challenges to any8
14726	14726	ballot, must be made at the time that the9
14727	14727	absentee ballot is opened or at the time that the10
14728	14728	voter presents him or herself at the polling11
14729	14729	place. That then allows the -- the municipal12
14730	14730	worker, the warden, to put a marking on the back13
14731	14731	of the ballot. It says the ballot is challenged14
14732	14732	and giving who challenged it and write down the15
14733	14733	reasons for it, then that record is maintained.16
14734	14734	So the appropriate time to challenge17
14735	14735	absentee, you know, write-in, mail-in ballots is18
14736	14736	when they're opened, and Mr. Mirra said that he19
14737	14737	was in Ipswich when they opened up 1,000 mail-in20
14738	14738	ballots. So that was his opportunity and his21
14739	14739	time to challenge those ballots. You do not22
14740	14740	challenge absentee ballots at the recount itself.23
14741	14741	And the challenges to absentee ballots24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14742	14742	781-383-1188 53
14743	14743	are covered by Chapter 54, Section 96. But also1
14744	14744	in the recount statute, there's no provision for2
14745	14745	examining signatures on absentee ballots. What3
14746	14746	the provision actually says is, that you can4
14747	14747	review unopened -- you can review rejected5
14748	14748	absentee ballots and those envelopes and6
14749	14749	materials must be preserved. Any challenge, of7
14750	14750	course, that's made, can be reviewed at a8
14751	14751	recount. But the challenges needed to be made at9
14752	14752	an earlier point before the recount.10
14753	14753	Now, let me move on to the Rowley11
14754	14754	spoiled ballot issue. Those spoiled ballots were12
14755	14755	mail-in ballots. Usually, when you go in to vote13
14756	14756	in-person, and you have a ballot, and you spoil14
14757	14757	it, it's spoiled. There might be an over vote15
14758	14758	for Governor. They might have voted for, you16
14759	14759	know, Maura Healey, and, you know, and -- and the17
14760	14760	Republican candidate for Governor. But --18
14761	14761	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: He's forgettable,19
14762	14762	don't worry about it.20
14763	14763	MR. MCDONOUGH: -- but, you know, that21
14764	14764	would be -- that would be an over vote, and the22
14765	14765	machine would reject that ballot. And usually,23
14766	14766	the voter is there and the voter is able to then24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14767	14767	781-383-1188 54
14768	14768	decide, no, I want to vote for both of them. And1
14769	14769	they'll press a button and it'll go into the2
14770	14770	ballot box.3
14771	14771	In other cases, the voter will say, oh4
14772	14772	my goodness, I didn't know I made an over vote.5
14773	14773	So in that case the person is given a new ballot,6
14774	14774	and then the ballot goes into a spoiled envelope.7
14775	14775	As the clerks have admitted, and it's in the8
14776	14776	affidavits here, what they did up in Rowley was,9
14777	14777	they -- they took every ballot that had been, you10
14778	14778	know, that was rejected by the machine, and11
14779	14779	marked it as spoiled.12
14780	14780	So the ballot could have bee spoiled13
14781	14781	based on a race for attorney general, or14
14782	14782	governor, or state senate, or something else, not15
14783	14783	in the state rep race. So by spoiling that16
14784	14784	ballot, they took away votes for -- from that17
14785	14785	voter, for all the other people for whom the18
14786	14786	ballot should not -- was not spoiled. It's only19
14787	14787	the spoiled vote on the ballot that should be20
14788	14788	rejected.21
14789	14789	So, when our lawyers in Rowley asked to22
14790	14790	examine the spoiled ballots and examined the23
14791	14791	spoiled ballots, there were five mail-in ballots24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14792	14792	781-383-1188 55
14793	14793	where there were appropriate votes for Kristin1
14794	14794	Kassner, and that was not the reason that the2
14795	14795	ballot had been spoiled. And so the -- the Board3
14796	14796	correctly decided to count those votes for4
14797	14797	Kristin Kassner.5
14798	14798	And I just might remind you that back in6
14799	14799	2011 in the Alicea Case, what happened in court7
14800	14800	there was, there was one ballot that was an8
14801	14801	absentee ballot that had been spoiled. But it9
14802	14802	was spoiled for the race for governor, not for10
14803	14803	the race for state representative. And the judge11
14804	14804	in that case determined that that ballot should12
14805	14805	be counted for Alicea, and that's how it ended up13
14806	14806	in a tie. So it's no different from that. That14
14807	14807	ballot was improperly spoiled in 2003, these15
14808	14808	ballots were improperly spoiled in 2022.16
14809	14809	The third issue is -- is the -- the17
14810	14810	discrepancy between the number of certified and18
14811	14811	recounted ballots, particularly In Ipswich, were19
14812	14812	there were 14. All I can say to that, as20
14813	14813	somebody who has been at way too many recounts,21
14814	14814	is every recount finds additional ballots. It's22
14815	14815	rare that you don't find additional ballots, and23
14816	14816	those additional ballots broke more for Ms.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14817	14817	781-383-1188 56
14818	14818	Kassner then for Mr. Mirra.1
14819	14819	But it's not unusual to see there be2
14820	14820	more ballots that are found and counted during3
14821	14821	the recount. And the recount is a different4
14822	14822	process than that on election night or happens5
14823	14823	during the week, all the ballots are looked at in6
14824	14824	public. It's a public meeting. Everybody can7
14825	14825	see everything that's going on. And those8
14826	14826	ballots were appropriately counted.9
14827	14827	And we could raise an issue ourselves in10
14828	14828	the 2nd Precinct in Newbury, there were three11
14829	14829	less ballots counted on -- during the recount,12
14830	14830	than were counted during the initial13
14831	14831	certification. And one of those was a blank, so14
14832	14832	that's irrelevant.15
14833	14833	But two of those were for Kristin16
14834	14834	Kassner. So if we want to argue about, you17
14835	14835	know, these different ballots that should be18
14836	14836	counted, or whatnot, it's going to take a lot of19
14837	14837	forensic work to look into that. But I think20
14838	14838	that -- I think that everything we know about21
14839	14839	recounts is that there's always discrepancies22
14840	14840	between the counts on the day of the election and23
14841	14841	the following days and the final.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14842	14842	781-383-1188 57
14843	14843	The last thing about the individual1
14844	14844	protested ballots. I think it's it's quite clear2
14845	14845	in the statute Chapter 54, Section 106, if a3
14846	14846	voter marks more names than there are persons to4
14847	14847	be elected on an office, his ballot shall not be5
14848	14848	counted for such office. So -- and the two6
14849	14849	you've heard about -- you've only heard about two7
14850	14850	of them here today. These two up in -- up in8
14851	14851	Ipswich.9
14852	14852	There are 30-something challenges that10
14853	14853	-- protested ballots by Mr. Mirra, that are11
14854	14854	sitting in envelopes somewhere. Among those, are12
14855	14855	ballots that -- that the voters filled in using13
14856	14856	mail-in ballots, used a pencil rather than a pen14
14857	14857	to fill in the oval. Those were all objected to.15
14858	14858	I ended up objecting to one of them myself just16
14859	14859	to test to see whether they joined me in my17
14860	14860	objection when I made it, when it was a Kassner18
14861	14861	vote.19
14862	14862	But, you know, there were many, many20
14863	14863	things. There was a ballot where someone had --21
14864	14864	had filled in both circles for Kassner and for --22
14865	14865	for Mirra, and then Kassner, and then put an X23
14866	14866	next to the -- over the oval for -- for Mr. Mirra24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14867	14867	781-383-1188 58
14868	14868	and wrote, "No" to the left of that. And while1
14869	14869	leaving this oval filled in for Ms. Kassner and2
14870	14870	put a, "Yes" next to that, That seemed to be3
14871	14871	pretty clear as to what the voter's intent was in4
14872	14872	that ballot, but that was protested and that's5
14873	14873	one of the ballots that's still at issue here.6
14874	14874	So there's -- there's many, many7
14875	14875	different ballots. I think these election8
14876	14876	officials did the best they could with -- with9
14877	14877	making determinations. And you don't always have10
14878	14878	to make a determination for a ballot. You can11
14879	14879	make -- the -- the clerk's themselves, the12
14880	14880	registrars themselves can decide that a ballot13
14881	14881	cannot be -- the intent of the voter cannot be14
14882	14882	reasonably ascertained.15
14883	14883	And if you look -- and that, you know, I16
14884	14884	know the scribbled ballot, the one that's -- that17
14885	14885	Mr. Mirra has talked about endlessly, it's very18
14886	14886	similar to that -- going back to the Alicea Case,19
14887	14887	it's very similar to that ballot in the Alicea20
14888	14888	case. And that case, the ballot was rejected21
14889	14889	because of the governor's race, the voter had22
14890	14890	done scribbles in the oval for one candidate, and23
14891	14891	then scribbles underneath that and a little bit24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14892	14892	781-
14893	14893	383-1188 59
14894	14894	in the circle for the -- for the other candidate1
14895	14895	for governor. And that was rejected by the2
14896	14896	scanner as an over vote.3
14897	14897	And the court had no -- no problem with4
14898	14898	that. The court's only issue was whether or not5
14899	14899	the scribbling mark in Mr. Alicea's oval worked6
14900	14900	and we think that that was a determination that7
14901	14901	was made by the Board of Registrars. I was8
14902	14902	there, I argued it and it looked like two9
14903	14903	different markings there on that ballot.10
14904	14904	And it looked like the -- from the11
14905	14905	perspective of the registrars of voters, they12
14906	14906	could not reasonably ascertain the intent of the13
14907	14907	voter. And so that is that's our position on it.14
14908	14908	That was our position then.15
14909	14909	Again, I just want to thank you all for16
14910	14910	the time, and I'd be welcomed to hear any17
14911	14911	questions you might have.18
14912	14912	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Thank you, Counsel.19
14913	14913	and Ms. Kassner as well. I guess I would start20
14914	14914	off with the same questions we had for21
14915	14915	Representative Mirra and -- and his counsel.22
14916	14916	What is your opinion on the significance23
14917	14917	of the certificate and the summons sent?24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14918	14918	781-383-1188 60
14919	14919	MR. MCDONOUGH: Well, I -- I think that1
14920	14920	the certification on December 14 and the summons2
14921	14921	to -- to Ms. Kassner that was issued at the same3
14922	14922	time is a bright line in terms of election4
14923	14923	contests. Once that determination is made,5
14924	14924	everything that the Secretary of State has to do6
14925	14925	from that point is administerial, and the --7
14926	14926	after the Secretary signs it, the Secretary just8
14927	14927	has to take that and send that over to the -- to9
14928	14928	the House of Representatives.10
14929	14929	I'm not sure that any court could have11
14930	14930	the authority to order the Secretary to change12
14931	14931	that certification when it was voted on by the13
14932	14932	Executive Council, signed by the Secretary of the14
14933	14933	-- of the council and signed by the Governor. So15
14934	14934	we think that's -- that's a bright line16
14935	14935	distinction.17
14936	14936	And I think that when I mentioned the18
14937	14937	Banks Case and my -- in my motion to dismiss in19
14938	14938	Superior Court, I think I only focused a sentence20
14939	14939	on that. But the Banks Case was picked up by21
14940	14940	Judge Drechsler there. And -- and really -- he22
14941	14941	really looked at it extensively.23
14942	14942	And -- and that was something that was24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14943	14943	781-383-1188 61
14944	14944	not apparent to the -- to the Secretary of State1
14945	14945	when the Secretary of State filed their2
14946	14946	opposition to the motion for preliminary3
14947	14947	injunction. It was not apparent to the4
14948	14948	municipal attorneys as well. They didn't mention5
14949	14949	the Banks Case. I don't think they had done work6
14950	14950	on that.7
14951	14951	But then, after that, we discovered that8
14952	14952	there was an order from a Special Committee here,9
14953	14953	the Special Committee from 2003. And if you look10
14954	14954	at that order, they spend an incredible amount --11
14955	14955	that legislature spent an incredible amount of12
14956	14956	time talking about the Bank's Case and talking13
14957	14957	about when authority of the court ended and the14
14958	14958	exclusive jurisdiction moved to the -- to the --15
14959	14959	to the House of Representatives.16
14960	14960	So that certification in -- in my mind,17
14961	14961	is a bright line that if you -- if you want to18
14962	14962	initiate litigation, you have to initiate it19
14963	14963	before there's a certification. Otherwise, you20
14964	14964	have to deal with the House of Representatives,21
14965	14965	which we are doing here.22
14966	14966	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: And does your client23
14967	14967	agree that -- or I should ask, what's your24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14968	14968	781-383-1188 62
14969	14969	position on the involvement of the judicial1
14970	14970	branch at this point in time in this matter?2
14971	14971	MR. MCDONOUGH: At this point in time,3
14972	14972	you know, we've been through the Superior Court,4
14973	14973	the Appeals Court, and the SJC, and they've not5
14974	14974	only upheld our position, the Appeals Court and6
14975	14975	the Superior Court said that Mr. Mirra has no7
14976	14976	likelihood of success on the merits. He has8
14977	14977	filed a motion for --9
14978	14978	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Sorry. Counsel,10
14979	14979	actually, I should have put a finer point on it.11
14980	14980	You agree that the involvement of the12
14981	14981	judicial branch ceases now that the Special13
14982	14982	Committee has taken jurisdiction?14
14983	14983	MR. MCDONOUGH: It -- yes. But somebody15
14984	14984	needs to file a motion to that -- for that with16
14985	14985	the -- with the Appeals Court because there's a17
14986	14986	notice of appeal there.18
14987	14987	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: That's in the --19
14988	14988	MR. MCDONOUGH: Yeah.20
14989	14989	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: -- the courts for21
14990	14990	you all to deal with, right?22
14991	14991	MR. MCDONOUGH: Right.23
14992	14992	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: And the decision of24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
14993	14993	781-383-1188 63
14994	14994	this Special Committee will be accepted?1
14995	14995	MR. MCDONOUGH: This is it. You know,2
14996	14996	if we don't prevail here, this is it.3
14997	14997	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: Just for4
14998	14998	clarification to one -- on the certification and5
14999	14999	that the House of Representatives, the body6
15000	15000	itself, in these previous cases, by us convening7
15001	15001	this group in having these hearings, we have8
15002	15002	taken Jurisdiction, correct?9
15003	15003	MR. MCDONOUGH: Yes.10
15004	15004	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: Thank you.11
15005	15005	MR. MCDONOUGH: I believe that when the12
15006	15006	Special Committee was set up -- you know, it's13
15007	15007	questioned about -- it was -- that the House of14
15008	15008	Representatives did nothing after the15
15009	15009	certification. But as soon as the House of16
15010	15010	Representatives did something, it has exclusive17
15011	15011	jurisdiction.18
15012	15012	Now, the House decided in 2011 not to19
15013	15013	exercise that jurisdiction in the Alicea Case.20
15014	15014	They did set up a Special Committee, but they21
15015	15015	waited for the end of the court proceedings. But22
15016	15016	that was the choice that the candidates, I23
15017	15017	believe, made.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15018	15018	781-383-1188 64
15019	15019	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: Just wanted to1
15020	15020	emphasize that we have taken jurisdiction.2
15021	15021	MR. MCDONOUGH: Yes.3
15022	15022	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: Thank you.4
15023	15023	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Just to clarify, a5
15024	15024	certification is certificate that's mailed to the6
15025	15025	community? Is that what you're referring to?7
15026	15026	Because, immediately after the first November 88
15027	15027	election, there is -- there was a certification9
15028	15028	by the Governor's Council of the November 810
15029	15029	results, that was then assigned. And then, that11
15030	15030	triggered the -- the ability to file for the12
15031	15031	recount.13
15032	15032	MR. MCDONOUGH: What happened was that14
15033	15033	there was a first certification on November 30.15
15034	15034	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Right.16
15035	15035	MR. MCDONOUGH: And that triggered the17
15036	15036	recount.18
15037	15037	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Because of19
15038	15038	signatures, were requesting it.20
15039	15039	MR. MCDONOUGH: Yes.21
15040	15040	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Right.22
15041	15041	MR. MCDONOUGH: Because there was --23
15042	15042	there had been sufficient signatures --24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15043	15043	781-383-1188 65
15044	15044	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: The subsequent1
15045	15045	certification after the recount was completed,2
15046	15046	and then -- and that was on November 14th.3
15047	15047	MR. MCDONOUGH: Right.4
15048	15048	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: And that led to5
15049	15049	the certificate?6
15050	15050	MR. MCDONOUGH: Yes.7
15051	15051	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Let's make a8
15052	15052	distinction between the certificate and the9
15053	15053	certification because -- .10
15054	15054	MR. MCDONOUGH: Yeah, it's -- it's it's11
15055	15055	the return of votes. I think it's called. And12
15056	15056	then, there is a certificate -- there's a13
15057	15057	summons, actually, that Ms. Kassner --14
15058	15058	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Right.15
15059	15059	MR. MCDONOUGH: -- had -- she violated, I16
15060	15060	hope she doesn't go to jail for not abiding by17
15061	15061	that summons to appear at the House Chamber on18
15062	15062	the -- she was in the gallery.19
15063	15063	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Counsel, do you or20
15064	15064	your client allege that there was any fraud?21
15065	15065	MR. MCDONOUGH: There was no fraud22
15066	15066	anywhere in the in the election. No, the whole23
15067	15067	thing was for very professionally run.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15068	15068	781-383-1188 66
15069	15069	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Any intentional1
15070	15070	misdeeds by registrars?2
15071	15071	MR. MCDONOUGH: No. No. And I'll --3
15072	15072	I'll say that about, you know, Mr. Mirra's4
15073	15073	supporters, and who was attorney -- there are a5
15074	15074	lot of attorneys who were involved in this. We6
15075	15075	had some attorneys actually from -- from the7
15076	15076	Republican National Committee came up from8
15077	15077	Washington, DC to help on this. It was almost a9
15078	15078	national case.10
15079	15079	But they were all professional, his11
15080	15080	volunteers were all very professional and very --12
15081	15081	you know, I had good conversations with -- with13
15082	15082	many of those people. They're good people.14
15083	15083	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: What your response15
15084	15084	to -- and if I'm misquoting, please Counsel, let16
15085	15085	me know, that O'Brien is controlling here on the17
15086	15086	-- on the intent issue?18
15087	15087	MR. MCDONOUGH: Well, I -- O'Brien is19
15088	15088	like a seminal case. But in this case, you know,20
15089	15089	I saw the ballot in Ipswich. There was an oval21
15090	15090	filled in for Mr. Mirra, and then Donald Trump's22
15091	15091	name was written in and the oval was filled in23
15092	15092	for Donald Trump. Two ovals were filled-in in24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15093	15093	781-383-1188 67
15094	15094	that ballot. There's no mistake about it in my1
15095	15095	mind. I made a copy of it.2
15096	15096	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: So then -- so3
15097	15097	you'd have no objection --4
15098	15098	MR. MCDONOUGH: I didn't make a copy of5
15099	15099	the ballot. I made my own visualization.6
15100	15100	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Okay. But you7
15101	15101	would then have no objection if we reviewed those8
15102	15102	contested ballots?9
15103	15103	MR. MCDONOUGH: Those two?10
15104	15104	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Or any of the ones11
15105	15105	that are outstanding?12
15106	15106	MR. MCDONOUGH: I -- I think if this13
15107	15107	committee has got, you know, like Judge Drechsler14
15108	15108	said, I don't think that examining this piecemeal15
15109	15109	is the way to go. If they wanted to -- if they16
15110	15110	had filed a complaint about two ballots, then17
15111	15111	that might work. But there's a whole lot of18
15112	15112	issues here and there's a whole lot of issues to19
15113	15113	determine. And then, we're going to respond to a20
15114	15114	lot of those issues.21
15115	15115	I mean, we didn't even have an22
15116	15116	opportunity to answer the complaint and -- and23
15117	15117	make any allegations. So we're -- you know, I24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15118	15118	781-383-1188 68
15119	15119	think it's -- it's a waste of time. I -- I think1
15120	15120	to be honest with you, I think it's a slap in the2
15121	15121	face to those registrars who, you know -- and I3
15122	15122	was there. You were there as well. I believe it4
15123	15123	was a -- .5
15124	15124	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Was it a unanimous6
15125	15125	vote?7
15126	15126	MR. MCDONOUGH: No, it was a two-to-one8
15127	15127	vote, but there was a lot of discussion about it9
15128	15128	among the three registrars. They didn't do this10
15129	15129	cavalierly. They didn't go in there saying,11
15130	15130	we're going to do this for Mirra or we're going12
15131	15131	to do this for Kassner.13
15132	15132	They spent an awful lot of time14
15133	15133	discussing it. These were -- I mean, this is15
15134	15134	what they do. This is what registrars do. This16
15135	15135	is what, you know, I do it kind of part-time, but17
15136	15136	they do it full-time looking at this. So I think18
15137	15137	it just -- I think it's unnecessary. And really19
15138	15138	a slap in the face to those registrars.20
15139	15139	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Just -- you21
15140	15140	mentioned the spoiled ballots.22
15141	15141	MR. MCDONOUGH: Yeah.23
15142	15142	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Did you review the24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15143	15143	781-383-1188 69
15144	15144	spoiled ballots in all six communities?1
15145	15145	MR. MCDONOUGH: Yes.2
15146	15146	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: And are those all3
15147	15147	kept separately so that you can distinguish4
15148	15148	between -- you mentioned like spoiled ballot that5
15149	15149	somebody maybe voted twice, and asked for another6
15150	15150	ballot. In which case you'd agree that that7
15151	15151	first spoiled ballot shouldn't be looked at for8
15152	15152	any of the reasons because they've had another9
15153	15153	chance to fill in an entire ballot?10
15154	15154	MR. MCDONOUGH: Yes.11
15155	15155	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Are those all12
15156	15156	kept?13
15157	15157	MR. MCDONOUGH: They are all kept, all14
15158	15158	the spoiled ballots--15
15159	15159	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: I know they are16
15160	15160	all kept. Are they all kept, you know, not in17
15161	15161	one big envelope that says spoiled so you can18
15162	15162	distinguish between somebody who's had a chance19
15163	15163	to vote again versus someone who's not had a20
15164	15164	chance to vote again?21
15165	15165	MR. MCDONOUGH: You know, the -- the22
15166	15166	mail-in ballots are different from in-person23
15167	15167	ballots.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15168	15168	781-383-1188 70
15169	15169	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Spoiled ballots?1
15170	15170	MR. MCDONOUGH: No. In-person ballots2
15171	15171	are different than mail-in ballots. Mail-in3
15172	15172	ballots, I believe, are the yellow on the top, or4
15173	15173	something like that. So these were all mail-in5
15174	15174	ballots that were objected to, that -- that had,6
15175	15175	you know, that -- you know, that -- that had --7
15176	15176	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: They were all8
15177	15177	spoiled on election day?9
15178	15178	MR. MCDONOUGH: They were spoiled on10
15179	15179	election day. As the clerk said, they were11
15180	15180	spoiled because they were -- they were just12
15181	15181	treated as spoiled because the machine rejected13
15182	15182	them, which is inappropriate. It -- it shouldn't14
15183	15183	happen that way.15
15184	15184	Should have been -- they should have16
15185	15185	been separated and -- and put it in a special17
15186	15186	place to be counted later. And I think the clerk18
15187	15187	understands that was a mistake. Mistakes happen.19
15188	15188	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Right. No -- no.20
15189	15189	I -- I appreciate you saying that, because that's21
15190	15190	exactly -- when you say the registrar had spent22
15191	15191	time and tried to render a decision, but they're23
15192	15192	human beings and mistakes happen, and that's why24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15193	15193	781-
15194	15194	383-1188 71
15195	15195	I think we, ultimately as the final judge in1
15196	15196	this, may need to look at those contested issues.2
15197	15197	I agree with you.3
15198	15198	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Okay. I thank you4
15199	15199	both for appearing and -- and for coming forward5
15200	15200	today. And I want to commend both sides on this6
15201	15201	ability that you've exhibited in this, and7
15202	15202	particularly for the remarks you both delivered8
15203	15203	on the integrity of our elections. It's welcome,9
15204	15204	especially in the national setting here today.10
15205	15205	We're going to close this hearing, but I11
15206	15206	want to take just take one more privilege to12
15207	15207	follow the lead of counsel and candidates to13
15208	15208	thank the folks that helped out with this today.14
15209	15209	So Seamus Colbert from ILS down the end, Julianne15
15210	15210	Ryan for our stenographer. Our House court16
15211	15211	officers who are here helping us out.17
15212	15212	The clerk of the House, Steven James,18
15213	15213	and staff for their work in helping us get to19
15214	15214	this point. April Presgucci from the State20
15215	15215	Library. Kyle Richardson, in our close21
15216	15216	captioning service. The legislature has set up22
15217	15217	an accessibility service called PART. So Lashae23
15218	15218	Flowers and Jamie Pellegrino, who are helping24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15219	15219	781-
15220	15220	383-1188 72
15221	15221	interpret our words, which is not always easy to1
15222	15222	do given the way I talk.2
15223	15223	Colleen McGonagle from the House business3
15224	15224	office. State -- from Leader Jones' office,4
15225	15225	Melissa Cavanaugh and Michael Smith. From5
15226	15226	Representative Ryan's office, Sean Getchald and6
15227	15227	Colleen Belotti. And for my office, Talia Quinn,7
15228	15228	Michael Musto, Counsel Alex O'Connell, and8
15229	15229	Patrick Pendergast for their work in helping us9
15230	15230	get ready for this hearing. We will take this10
15231	15231	matter under advisement, and I believe what that11
15232	15232	means --12
15233	15233	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Is the record13
15234	15234	still open if either counsel wants to do a14
15235	15235	follow-up submission to address any questions, if15
15236	15236	they want to in writing?16
15237	15237	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Yeah. I think we17
15238	15238	can move. Yeah.18
15239	15239	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: Can we make a19
15240	15240	motion about it?20
15241	15241	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Sure.21
15242	15242	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: Motion to leave the22
15243	15243	record open for follow up in --23
15244	15244	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Second.24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15245	15245	781-383-1188 73
15246	15246	REPRESENTATIVE RYAN: -- Submissions.1
15247	15247	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: Yeah. Okay. All2
15248	15248	agree?3
15249	15249	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Yes.4
15250	15250	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: All right. So the5
15251	15251	record will remain open. We ask you to -- if6
15252	15252	there is follow-up, to get that to us as quickly7
15253	15253	as possible.8
15254	15254	MR. MCDONOUGH: Could we set a time,9
15255	15255	like, the end of business today or Monday, or --10
15256	15256	REPRESENTATIVE JONES: Why don't we say11
15257	15257	Tuesday because Monday is a holiday.12
15258	15258	REPRESENTATIVE DAY: So let's say Tuesday13
15259	15259	at the latest. All right. With that, we will14
15260	15260	conclude this hearing.15
15261	15261	(Whereupon, the proceeding is concluded at 11:15 a.m.)16
15262	15262	17
15263	15263	18
15264	15264	19
15265	15265	20
15266	15266	21
15267	15267	22
15268	15268	23
15269	15269	24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15270	15270	781-
15271	15271	383-1188 74
15272	15272	C E R T I F I C A T E1
15273	15273	2
15274	15274	COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS3
15275	15275	COUNTY OF PLYMOUTH, ss.4
15276	15276	5
15277	15277	I, Julianne Ryan, a Professional Court Reporter6
15278	15278	and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of7
15279	15279	Massachusetts, do hereby certify that the foregoing Special8
15280	15280	Committee Hearing Transcript was taken by me on January 13, 2023;9
15281	15281	That the said testimony was taken audiographically10
15282	15282	and then transcribed under my direction. To the best of11
15283	15283	my knowledge, the within transcript is a complete,12
15284	15284	true and accurate record of said hearing.13
15285	15285	I am not connected by blood or marriage14
15286	15286	with any of the said parties, nor interested directly or15
15287	15287	indirectly in the matter in controversy.16
15288	15288	In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand17
15289	15289	and Notary Seal this 17th day of January, 2023.18
15290	15290	19
15291	15291	20
15292	15292	21
15293	15293	22
15294	15294	23
15295	15295	24ADVANCED COURT REPORTING, LLC
15296	15296	781-
15297	15297	383-1188 Appendix G
15298	15298
15299	15299	______________________________
15300	15300	In the Year Two Thousand and Twenty-Three
15301	15301	______________________________
15302	15302
15303	15303	RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO DECLARING THAT KRISTIN E. KASSNER WAS DULY
15304	15304	ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TO THE GENERAL COURT.
15305	15305	Resolved, That Kristin E. Kassner of Hamilton was duly elected the Representative to the
15306	15306	General Court from the Second Essex District in the election held on November 8, 2022 and that
15307	15307	she is entitled to and is hereby given that seat allocated for the Second Essex District. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts