Well, the state canvassers’ committee met again today, and heard about a change in the final tally for the Progressive Party’s gubernatorial nomination. The revised total was 371 for Progressive Party chair Martha Abbott, and 370 for write-in “candidate” Annette Smith.

Smith picked up 16 votes from the original count, which had been certified by the canvassers on Tuesday. So what caused the discrepancy?

Faulty totals from two towns, Walden and Hardwick. Walden apparently underreported Smith’s total by 7, which was noticed by Smith supporters and brought to election officials’ attention after the canvassers’ Tuesday meeting. As for Hardwick, its results were initially faxed in to the Secretary of State’s office, and due to a combination of poor handwriting and poor fax quality, what should have been a “9” for Smith was tallied as a “0”. When Hardwick’s hard copy arrived in the mail, the discrepancy was discovered.

Smith has filed a formal request for a recount, as is her right since the final margin was within 2%.

At the canvassers’ meeting Director of Elections Kathy Scheele noted that “only a candidate, a losing candidate within a 2% margin, may…request a recount.” This was apparently aimed at Smith, who has not yet committed to actually becoming a candidate if she wins the recount. She has described herself as a sort of provisional candidate solely for the purpose of seeking a recount.

The big drama today was provided by VTGOP Chair “Angry Jack” Lindley, who delivered a harsh attack on the process and all but accused Secretary of State Jim Condos of incompetence and/or grossly unethical conduct.  

 Lindley sat directly across a conference table from Condos, but never made eye contact as he delivered a rather rambling statement in which he sought to remove the Republicans’ previous validation of the primary result. (The aggressive content and subdued delivery were noticeably at odds; Lindley has spent most of his political career behind the scenes, and I think he’s not used to actually facing the person he’s targeting.)

“The process… may suggest that there is collusion between the Progressive Party and the Democratic Party,” he said. “It’s hard to believe that one vote would be the deciding factor. And given that the other candidate [Abbott] has already withdrawn, we, we stand, ah, on the side of good party activity and believe the Progressive Party deserves to have this position filed for the fall campaign.”

Which is beside the point. Whether or not there’s a name in the Progressive slot has nothing to do with the conduct of the primary. But his implication was clear: the Democrats would prefer not to have a Progressive on the ballot, and pulled some sort of dirty trick to keep Smith one vote shy of victory. He has no evidence, naturally.

(I’ve appended the full text of his remarks below. It’s a wonderful example of inarticulate rhetoric.)

After the meeting, he told reporters that the situation “doesn’t pass the smell test.” When asked if he was implying collusion between Condos and party leaders, he said “It’s now  beginning to be a consistent pattern, whether it be the checklists and the validity of checklists in the state of Vermont, or in fact the counting of primary votes, and I’m very disturbed by it.”

Not sure what he means by “the validity of checklists.” I suspect he’s trying to tie this primary to the broader Republican theme of alleged vote fraud. For his part, Condos dismissed Lindley’s complaints as “strictly politics.”

Lindley has also reportedly thrown a monkey wrench into the recount process. By law, there has to be a five-day waiting period before a recount can begin. But if all parties agree, that period can be waived. (A recount of the Progressive ballots should only take a day or two.) But Lindley told VTDigger that the VTGOP would not agree to a waiver.

Which puts Vermont in danger of missing federal deadlines. Here’s how the situation was described by Condos and Scheele: The state has to deliver ballots to all of Vermont’s town clerks by September 21. If Lindley continues his obstructionism, the recount cannot begin until next Friday the 14th. Even if it were completed quickly, that would leave the Secretary of State only a few days to prepare the ballots, proofread them, send them to the printers, get the proofs back for final proofreading, get them printed, and ship them to all of Vermont’s town clerks by the 21st.

Lindley’s refusal to waive has nothing whatsoever to do with his accusations regarding the primary. He’s just throwing a tantrum. If somebody changes his nappy, maybe he’ll come to his senses and allow the recount to proceed as quickly as possible.

When all is said and done, this whole thing is interesting but essentially meaningless. It won’t have any significant effect on the course of the campaign. If Abbott’s victory is upheld, she’ll stay out of the race. If Smith turns out to be the winner, she’ll have to decide whether to fully commit herself to a candidacy. If she does, she’ll get the Progressives’ seat at the gubernatorial debates.

(Well, whichever debates remain. The first one is Wednesday the 12th on VPR. If Lindley doesn’t agree to a waiver, Smith won’t be able to take part in that one. Considering Lindley’s stated concern for having a Progressive in the race, shouldn’t he remove that roadblock to her participation?)

She does have something to lose in all of this, however. If she doesn’t come across as a credible candidate on a broad array of issues, she and her movement will lose some credibility with the public. And if her vote total is small — which seems likely, considering that her core supporters number a few hundred and the Progressive vote will be split between her and Shumlin — it’ll make the anti-wind movement seem insignificant.

And now, for your reading pleasure, we present the unexpurgated version of Jack Lindley’s protest to the committee of canvassers:

On behalf of the Republican Party, I realize there’s no signature required today, but we would withhold our signature on a process that we don’t believe is valid, has integrity, and stands the test of good — ah, good work. So at this particular point in time, my substitute had signed on another day, but at this point in time, we would be withholding our signature on the canvass committee.

We’re concerned that the process is full of, you know, not good work, and may suggest that there is collusion between the Progressive Party and the Democratic Party, and we find that to not be in good order, and frankly we’re very disappointed in the outcome and encourage the Progressive candidate to file for a recount.

It’s hard to believe that one vote would be the deciding factor. And given that the other candidate has already withdrawn, we, we stand, ah, on the side of good party activity and believe the Progressive Party deserves to have this position filled for the fall campaign. Anything less than that, in our judgment, serves no good for the voice of all Vermonters, and I must say that I find it very disappointing that we can’t get the numbers right the first time.

So if there is a process for us to withdraw the original signature, we wish to do that. If not, I’m afraid that we’re bound by signing on a canvass that was originally not valid.

Lindley was then informed that there was no process for withdrawing a signature because the revised count did not change the outcome of the election.

p.s. You may be wondering, what if the recount produces a tie between Abbott and Smith? In that case, the Progressive Party would choose one of the two as its candidate. In other words, tie goes to Abbott.