A PROMISE TO KEEP: 5%
A Ballot Committee of
Citizens for Limited Taxation & Government
PO Box 408 * Peabody, MA 01960
Phone:(617) 248-0022 /(978) 538-3900 E-Mail:
cltg@cltg.org
Visit our web-page at:
http://cltg.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------

*** Promise Update ***
Monday, January 5, 1998

Greetings activists and supporters:

I still contend that it would’ve been a whole lot easier if only our members had made a little greater effort to collect a few more signatures for our income tax rollback, but . . .

The Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) and the Tax Equity Alliance of Massachusetts (TEAM) officially filed their challenge of our Promise tax rollback petition signatures on Friday, and we, the ten "original signers" have been served with copies of their Objections and Motion for Preliminary Orders. It states that they "intend to contest the validity of in excess of 2,000 signatures and anticipate that at least ten (10) full hearing days will be needed to present the case."

We, the ten "original signers," are the Respondents. The Objectors are:

Jim R. St. George
72 Winter St., Arlington, MA 02174

Carol Brill
74 Horace Rd., Belmont, MA 02178

Mary L. Farrity
6 Pennybrook Gardens, Saugus, MA 01906

John W. Hamilton
42 Walnut St., #1, Somerville, MA 02143

Deahdra Butler-Henderson
12 Pleasanton St., Dorchester, MA 02121

They have asked the state Ballot Law Commission to require "the presence of election officials from approximately two hundred and eighty (280) cities and towns," and to require them "to bring with them numerous records and documents relative to registered voters in their communities . . ."

". . . The Objection involves in excess of four hundred (400) non-genuine questioned signatures. There may be a need to subpoena in a large number of these individuals."

We have a pre-hearing conference scheduled with the Commission on Wednesday afternoon to entertain stipulations— theirs and ours. Our stipulations follow the News Advisory (below) that we issued this morning.

Chip Ford—
---------------------------------------------------------------

NEWS ADVISORY
Contact: Chip Ford (978) 538-3900
January 5, 1998


Teachers throw spitballs at walls; hope *something* sticks

William A. McDermott, one of an army of attorneys retained by the Massachusetts Teachers Association in its assault on voter decision-making, again has filed a frivolous challenge to signatures obtained by a ballot committee of Citizens for Limited Taxation & Government.

In "Frivolous Bill" McDermott’s last challenge, he argued that the Coalition for (Legislative) Payraise Repeal had "mutilated" its own petitions by stamping its return address on a blank portion of the petition forms. After three days of hearings in 1996, it was thrown out as "frivolous" by the state Ballot Law Commission. That bizarre challenge to a petition which would cut legislators salaries had been brought by a McDermott employee, who presumably was personally offended all on her own by the idea of a lower-paid citizen-legislature— offended enough to hire her boss!

The real people behind his latest frivolous challenge are readily identified as associated with the Massachusetts Teachers Association and TEAM. On their behalf, McDermott, of Sullivan & McDermott, joined by the law firms of Kassler & Feuer and Hoopes & Cronin, will, according to his Motion for Preliminary Orders, subpoena "election officials from approximately two hundred and eighty cities and towns," who "will be required to bring with them numerous records and documents . . ."

McDermott has also expressed his possible need to subpoena "a large number . . . in excess of four hundred" of the individuals whose signatures are being challenged by the school teachers of the commonwealth and TEAM. Over 700 people from across the state could be brought into the Ballot Law Committee hearing room over the ten days of hearings he has requested, some of them carrying mountains of documents. If he has his way, this should be interesting, if not a revolving-door circus.

In his written objection, McDermott stated his intention to challenge not only signatures that do not fall within the written guidelines, but also those that do (eg. people who printed their names, as is allowed by law), along with signers whose street names, he claims, are illegible (leaving one to wonder how the town clerks and registrars identified them).

We are confident that all of these frivolous challenges and even more frivolous requests will be dismissed by the Ballot Law Commission and our initiative petition to rollback the "temporary" tax increase will be on the 1998 ballot. If necessary, we will counter-challenge with thousands of voter signatures that were erroneously rejected by clerks and registrars. However, unless absolutely necessary, we will not drag voters out of their homes and away from their jobs to play the school teachers union’s desperate and frivolous game.
· 30 --

---------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Pre-trial Stipulations:

1. The signatures that have been certified by local registrars and accepted on December 5, 1997 by the Elections Division of the Secretary of State are legitimate signatures of registered voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Promise petition to rollback the "temporary" income tax rate increase is now before the Massachusetts legislature as required by the Massachusetts Constitution.

2. The intent and purpose of voter signature certification is to separate those signatures of registered voters from signatures of persons not registered to vote and thereby ineligible to participate in the initiative petition process.

3. Voters whose signatures fall within the guidelines of Chapter 55 Sec. 3 (ie., voters who print rather than sign their names, voters who use a common or known nickname, voters with an inserted or omitted middle initial or Jr. or Sr., voters who use two initials with a surname, voters who use ditto marks for an address, etc.), will not be inconvenienced and dragged from their jobs by frivolous subpoenas, as this would have a chilling effect on the petition process.

4. Voters who sign on the line above or below a relative of the same surname, whose handwriting is clearly different so there is no reason to assume that one signed for the other, will not be inconvenienced and dragged from their jobs by frivolous subpoenas, as this would have a chilling effect on the petition process.

5. Respondents shall be given the benefit of doubt when challenging signatures crossed out illegally by registrars who denied certification, as they are now unreadable.

6. That all local registrars called before the commission be asked whether they used the Secretary of State’s Central Voter Registry (CVR) database exclusively, or if they also checked the more recent voter registration cards in their respective offices.

7. The Central Voter Registry database used by local registrars is flawed because, among other reasons, the Registry of Motor Vehicles did not consistently transmit accurate data to local clerks, who thus were able to find fewer, not more, registered voters than they certified. (See exhibit A, "Driving Voters Away, Implementation of Motor Voter Laws in Massachusetts," a Report of the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight, May 1997)

8. The Central Voter Registry database is seriously out of date and inaccurate. Therefore, voters should be assumed to know their address and if they can be identified at a different address than that entered in the CVR database, should be allowed as proper signers of the petition.

9. Despite its flaws, the Central Voter Registry database does in some situations make it possible to identify registered voters by their post office box number, inasmuch as it lists the post office box number (mailing address) as well as the street address. Therefore, post office boxes should be allowed for the purpose of identifying registered voters.

10. If the Commission determines this challenge to be frivolous or without merit, full and fair monetary restitution for all costs and expenses borne by the respondents shall be immediately made to them or their agent by the objectors.

· End of Promise Stipulations—


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
You can e-mail A Promise to Keep: 5% at -->
cltg@cltg.org
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *