Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
City Council votes against ‘abrupt’ push for state takeover of Boston Election Department
Many City Council members said that ballot shortages on election night were unacceptable, but they said more information was needed before recommending receivership.
Spurred by ballot shortages throughout Boston and other election night issues, some City Council members are pushing for the city’s Election Department to be taken over by the state. But an effort to officially recommend state receivership failed during Wednesday’s meeting.
More voters turn out to the polls during presidential elections than other years, making it all the more egregious that Boston’s Election Department was unprepared on election night, Councilors Ed Flynn and Erin Murphy said in their resolution. Precincts in Hyde Park, Roslindale, West Roxbury, and Jamaica Plain all experienced ballot shortages, and a Savin Hill precinct completely ran out of ballots. A polling location in the South End ran out of English-only ballots, according to the resolution.
Advertisement:
Flynn and Murphy also drew attention to reports of poll workers not being able to contact the Election Department, causing long delays and some voters to be turned away.
While other councilors expressed concern about the election night issues, they largely concluded that recommending state receivership was premature at this point. A hearing is already scheduled for Dec. 6, during which councilors will have the opportunity to directly question members of the Election Department about what went wrong.
“This does seem to be a bit abrupt and a bit hostile to just go straight into receivership,” Councilor Julia Mejia said.
Advertisement:
Councilor Enrique Pepén said he was hesitant to recommend receivership because an administrative takeover like that could actually impose bureaucratic obstacles that delay improvement at the Election Department, rather than accelerate changes.
The resolution recommending receivership ultimately failed with seven votes against and two in favor. Councilors Gabriela Coletta Zapata, Tania Fernandes Anderson, Mejia, and Council President Ruthzee Louijeune all voted “present.”
While Councilor John FitzGerald voted against the measure, he commended Flynn and Murphy filing it.
“The fact of the matter is that the Election Department screwed up pretty bad throughout the city,” FitzGerald said. “I think, the matter of them bringing it up and having the conversation here, it certainly puts the Election Department on notice.”
Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin opened an investigation into the matter the day after the election, saying that his office had trouble contacting Boston’s election officials and that the ballot shortages were “unacceptable.” Multiple Councilors said they want to see the results of Galvin’s investigation before fully recommending receivership.
Galvin said his office printed and delivered 766,200 ballots to the city before election day, but that Boston did not deliver an adequate number of ballots to all precincts.
Advertisement:
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said last week that her administration was also conducting its own internal review of what went wrong. Right now, Wu believes the shortages were due to an error in the formula used to determine how many ballots each precinct needs.
“Mistakes happen,” Wu said during an appearance on GBH. “The question is, why did it then get to a point where people were not able to respond as quickly, and what did that response look like? That, I think, is the bigger focus.”
A move to place the Boston Election Department under receivership would not be without precedent. In 2006, it was taken over by the state after ballot shortages occurred in communities of color during the gubernatorial election, according to the resolution.
“Voting is a civil rights issue. It’s the bedrock of our democracy. Ballot shortages, unreasonable delays, lack of preparation demonstrated by our Election Department is unacceptable,” Flynn said. “It erodes the faith that many residents had in the city’s ability to provide basic city services with our election process.”
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com