Judge weighs putting GOP candidates back on primary ballot amid signature fraud allegations

LAWRENCE — A state judge is considering whether to reinstate two Republican candidates to their primary ballot this September on technical grounds, after a state commission ruled that hundreds of voter signatures the pair submitted were likely fraudulent.

Read more ‘With all due respect’: Markey, Moulton trade barbs in heated first debate of Mass. Senate primary

The case in Essex Superior Court hinges on signatures collected for Anne Manning Martin, a lieutenant governor candidate, and Michael Walsh, the party’s endorsed pick for attorney general, that one lawyer representing state officials said were produced through “systematic fraud.”

Attorneys for Walsh and Manning Martin argued in court Wednesday that the State Ballot Law Commission, which tossed them from the ballot last month, shouldn’t have been allowed to consider challenges to their signatures because those challenging them did not properly notify them about the objections.

During a court hearing, Judge Jeffrey T. Karp said there is “some merit” to the candidates’ argument because state law includes strict guidelines for how a signature challenge should be handled.

“How is it that the commission can just ignore what the Legislature has clearly stated?” Karp said.

Massachusetts law requires any person challenging signatures on a candidate’s nomination papers to send their objection to the candidate by certified mail, with return receipt requested, no later than the day after the objection is filed with the state. Failure to follow those rules “shall invalidate any objection,” according to state law.

In court documents, Manning Martin said challenges to her signatures, filed by Adam Roof, the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s executive director, and Shawn Oliver, another Republican running for lieutenant governor, did not comply with state law.

Walsh said Roof originally claimed to have sent the objection to Walsh by certified mail, but later said a deputy in the Democratic party “attempted but failed to send all of the envelopes by certified mail.”

Karp pressed an attorney representing the commission, David Mackey, on how he could “simply just ignore a direct statement from the Legislature.”

“To me, it would take a lot for … a Superior Court judge to ignore that, when the Legislature” has spoken, Karp said.

Mackey argued that the “key test” is whether “strict adherence to the procedural requirement of certified mail” overrides the commission’s primary purpose, which is “avoidance of voter fraud.”

“To disqualify the objections here based on certified mail requirements . . . would then allow names to appear on the ballot as a result of, in our view, plain and obvious signature fraud,” Mackey told Karp.

Mary-Ellen Manning, Anne Manning Martin’s sister and lawyer, said Karp’s ruling is “a big decision. But it’s very simple.”

“The State Ballot Law Commission is governed by statute. It’s a creature of statute. It must operate in accordance with the statutory jurisdiction,” she said.

Read more Second person in 4 days is fatally shot in Memphis by federal task force member

The two sides are expected to return to court Thursday. Karp said he hopes to issue a ruling in the case by Friday.

In its decision last month, the State Ballot Law Commission found that hundreds of signatures turned in by Manning Martin and Walsh were likely written by the same person and appeared in the same order as a database of voters in Weymouth.

In interviews with the Globe, a dozen people whose signatures appeared on the two candidates’ nomination papers said they did not sign the sheets.

The signature controversy has spawned two investigations by district attorneys in Norfolk and Plymouth Counties, the Globe reported. Submitting fraudulent signatures is illegal in Massachusetts, with punishments ranging from a $1,000 fine to up to a year in jail.

In court documents ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, Mackey accused Joe Bronske, the paid signature gatherer hired by Manning Martin and Walsh, of engaging “in a systematic — although ultimately obvious and easily detected — fraud” by forging signatures to help the two candidates make the September primary ballot.

Mackey also argued that Walsh and Manning Martin are ultimately responsible for Bronske’s actions because their campaigns hired him. Bronske has not responded to repeated requests for comment over the past month.

In Walsh’s case, Mackey said Walsh “admits to having personally examined his nomination papers before submitting them.” And for Manning Martin, Mackey said she is “bound by the acts” of Bronske, regardless of whether she knew if the signatures were fraudulent.

“Bronske’s actions in forging those signatures — even if never explicitly authorized by Manning-Martin — were within the scope of his duties as Manning Martin’s signature collector. Those actions are therefore attributed to Manning-Martin as a matter of law,” Mackey wrote in court documents.

Mary-Ellen Manning said no voters were brought to testify before the state commission to verify their signatures were forged.

“There was no testimony from anyone at all. You can’t deny that,” Mary-Ellen Manning said.

Walsh said he has denied the fraud allegations, but when pressed whether he indeed submitted documents that had fake signatures, he said, “I don’t think so.”

“Maybe Bronske ought to go to jail, but there’s not enough evidence in this case,” he said.

Read more Trump says US will give Ukraine license to produce Patriot defense systems