Boston’s failures in last week’s elections have raised concerns about whether the Elections Department, now under investigation by the Secretary of State’s office, would be able to make a “dramatic” shift to a ranked choice voting system.
Opponents of a Council proposal that aims to overhaul the city’s election process with a ranked-choice voting system, which would allow voters to rank their preferred candidates, have seized on last week’s vote shortages as evidence that Boston is not equipped to “ major changes”. its electoral system.
“Ranked choice voting is deeply flawed and should be kept away from Boston,” said MassGOP spokesperson Logan Trupiano. “Before even considering sweeping changes to our election process, Boston must first prove its ability to run grassroots elections.
“Mayor Wu must be held accountable for this complete failure,” Trupiano added. “How could such a blunder happen to the Secretary of State’s office here in Boston? Despite 766,200 ballots being printed and delivered, the city’s polling stations ran out of ballots. It is absolutely unacceptable.”
Secretary of State William Galvin started an investigation to Boston’s elections department and is considering receivership after a series of election snafus left polling places in multiple neighborhoods short of ballots, reflecting what he described as “incompetence” on the part of the city’s election officials.
Galvin placed Boston’s elections department under receivership in 2006 after a similar ballot shortage hampered that year’s November state election that elected former Gov. Deval Patrick.
The Secretary of State’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Mayor Michelle Wu initially blamed the vote shortage on high turnout last week. Her office later reversed itself, saying there was a “miscalculation in the formulas to categorize ballots for precincts that would be processed before Election Day.”
The city’s election failures came amid an effort by the City Council, led by Speaker Ruthzee Louijeune, to switch to ranked-choice voting — a process that Boston Election Department officials adopted. already said would pose operational challenges and additional costs and extend the time it would take to count ballots on election night.
A spokesperson for Mayor Wu said in a statement that the “City of Boston Elections Commission will always fulfill its duties to conduct free and fair elections under the laws that define election procedures in the Commonwealth.”
“We continue to work closely with the Secretary of State’s office and conduct our internal review to identify necessary improvements for the most efficient and effective ways to ensure full ballot access,” Wu’s spokesperson said.
However, Gregory Maynard, a political consultant and executive director of the Boston Policy Institute, said the city’s handling of last week’s election “does not bode well for Boston’s version of ranked-choice voting.”
“One of the big advantages of the Cambridge, Massachusetts version of ranked choice voting is that it eliminates the need for a preliminary election, allowing the city to focus solely on November’s Election Day,” Maynard said. “The plan Boston is pursuing is still preliminary and adds all this complexity to the actual counting of votes in November.”
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said that “ranked choice voting does not deliver on its promises” and “only picks a winner by eliminating ballots.”
“Even if Boston could hold its elections without controversy, ranked choice voting is a bad idea,” Craney said.
Larry DiCara, an attorney and former city council president, called ranked-choice voting a “very interesting idea from very well-intentioned people who don’t necessarily understand how complicated voting is for a lot of people, and how even more complicated it would be. .”
“I think it’s a great thing for very intelligent people who can figure this out, and for people for whom English isn’t their first language… I think it’s confusing,” DiCara said. “You have to be careful when you organize elections because people’s right to vote is at stake, and the easier we make it for people, the better.”
A request for comment from Council President Louijeune on whether last week’s election mishaps raised concerns about the Elections Division’s ability to handle ranked choice voting was not returned.
Loujeune put forward the proposal in June as a way to “modernize the way we vote and how every voice is heard in our elections.” The Herald reported last month on a similar statewide ballot measure underway. A prior voting question was rejected by Massachusetts voters in a 2020 referendum.
However, some of her colleagues did not shy away from contributing ideas.
“After the leadership failure of Boston’s elections department last week, it is clear that Boston is unable to move forward with a dramatic shift to ranked choice voting,” said City Councilman Ed Flynn. “I am against changing the current system to a more complicated and confusing ranked choice voting.
“We must refocus our efforts on neighborhood services and delivering basic services in the city, including running an effective Election Day operation,” Flynn added. “We also need a dramatic change in leadership at the Elections Department, including the implementation of a state receiver, to ensure this failure never happens again.”
Councilwoman Erin Murphy, who co-wrote a letter with Flynn to Galvin’s office last week insist on guardianship and co-sponsored a Council hearing with Louijeune on “voter accessibility and election preparation,” raised similar doubts.
“We are still a long way from implementing ranked choice voting in Boston, and my immediate focus is to ensure that every voter who wants to participate in our elections can do so without barriers,” Murphy said. “Right now, my priority is to address critical issues within our current system before we even consider implementing a major shift like ranked choice voting, which I don’t think the Elections Department is capable of doing at this time state.”
Leave a Reply