[QUICK HIT: The Orleans-Caledonia 1 recount confirms up-and-comer Democrat Sam Young’s win, with a margin of one single vote. The recount was requested by fellow Democrat John Rodgers, who came in third in the two-seat district after Republican Vicki Strong and young Sam.]

Tuesday’s Franklin-4 (Bakersfield-Enosburg) recount may have established a precedent, although you couldn’t tell by the result. Incumbent Republican Peter Perley was certified the winner over Progressive-Democratic candidate Cindy Weed – the same overall outcome as on election night. The margin was 3 votes closer than on Nov. 2.

What makes this recount special, according to Secretary of State Elections Division Director Kathy DeWolfe, is that there has never before been a recount where one candidate was co-endorsed by two parties, the Progressives and the Democrats. There have been plenty of candidates who’ve run as Democratic/Republican, but those seats are usually “gimmes,” no opposition, and thus no recount. There have been some P/D candidates, but they either won or lost by a wide enough margin that there was no recount.

So why have a recount? And how did it work with a P/D candidate? If you’re not a wonkish sort, you might want to move on to another diary.

With a margin of just 34 votes out of 1569 votes cast, Cindy Weed was well within her rights to file for a recount.

On November 16, County Clerk Jim Pelkey requested Republican and Democratic county chairs to each submit a list of at least 12 recount volunteers. By Monday the 22nd, the Progressive Party had been asked for a list, too.

Wednesday (the day before Thanksgiving), Jim sent out a proposal for assignment of duties. Many of you know how this works because of the recent gubernatorial primary recount. In this recount there were various “teams”: a checklist team, a ballot bag team, a set of “clerk observers,” a “clerk assistance team,” and four tables of counters. All the teams had representatives from each party.

That’s when the fun began. The situation and the argument is summarized in the document I eventually filed for a court ruling:

Emergency Request for Ruling

Franklin County Superior Court – Civil Division

IN RE: Cindy Weed, for the recount of votes cast Docket No. S 501-10 Fc

for State Representative from Franklin District 4,

General Election of November 2, 2010 Emergency request for ruling

Now comes Euan Bear, County Chairwoman of the Franklin County Democratic Committee to request an emergency ruling (due to the imminence of the scheduled recount) on the fairness and legality of apportionment of recount participants for the Tuesday, November 30 recount of votes cast in Franklin District 4.

Republican County Chair Linda Kirker requested of County Clerk Jim Pelkey to reduce the number of participants from the Democratic and Progressive Parties, alleging that because the two parties would both represent Candidate Cindy Weed’s interests, their number combined should equal that of the Republican participants in the recount.

I, Euan Bear, on behalf of the Franklin County Democratic Committee, object to this parsing of 17 V.S.A. 2602a – Appointment of recount committee, subsection (b), which reads:

The superior court shall set an early date for the recount, making appointments to the recount committee from among those nominated under this section. In making these appointments, the court shall appoint an equal number of persons from each party and from those persons representing an independent candidate. After making the appointments, the court shall notify all candidates  […] (Added 1985, No. 148 (Adj. Sess.), § 5; amended 2009, No. 40, § 3, eff. May 26, 2009.) [emphasis added]

The statute requires an equal number of participants from each party. The proposal to reduce and combine two parties’ representation on the recount committee violates that provision of statute.

Candidate Cindy Weed ran in the Democratic Party Primary and won our party’s nomination. She also was nominated via write-in vote in the Progressive Party Primary. There were two primaries by two separate major parties. In regard to this recount, each party – Democratic, Progressive, and Republican – has a separate interest in the outcome of the recount and is entitled to an equal representation on the recount committee.

Attempting to combine the interests of two separate major Parties and thus cut in half their representation on the recount committee would set a bad precedent. The fact that the two major Parties endorsed the same candidate is irrelevant. Separate major Parties’ endorsement of the same candidate should not result in the abrogation of their right to equal representation on recount committees.

Kirker’s argument had made a kind of sense on first glance. Jim sent out a request on the day after Thanksgiving to cut the D’s list. I called a few people to let ’em off the hook and then realized the whole idea gave me agita. I phoned GMD frontpager and Washington County Chair Jack McCullough for help with the recount law, and his research formed the centerpiece of my argument to the court.

There was a flurry of emails over the weekend in an attempt to find a workable compromise. Kirker cited the next section of the law to bolster her position:

§ 2602b. Assignment of duties

(b) The county clerk shall assign committee members to teams of at least four persons, consisting of one caller and one observer, representing different candidates, and one tally person and one double-check person, representing different candidates. Any additional team members shall be additional observers and double-check persons […]  [emphasis added]

I called an ‘elder statesman’ and Democratic rabble rouser, just to run the whole thing by him. He made clear the distinction between the party representatives appointed to the recount committee and the assignment of duties to representatives of each candidate.

It was above my ‘pay grade’ to figure out the apparent conflict between the two sections of the statute. I let Jim know I would be filing my request for an emergency ruling from presiding judge Mark Keller first thing Monday morning.

I have worked to bring Progressives and Democrats together in Franklin County. I helped convince both Cindy Weed and the County Democratic Committee that the election math would only make sense if she ran in the Democratic Primary and got an organized write-in vote from the Progressive Party. So, Ds & Ps can and should work together? Yes. Should we have to give up rights as separate parties to do so? Emphatically no!

I wanted to be sure that the principle of equal representation for each party was upheld. It might have far-reaching, though rarely applied, implications if running on two parties’ tickets meant giving up that right.

With help in phrasing from another lawyer friend, I filed the request, Kirker filed her response, and by the end of the day, we had our answer: The principle of party parity was upheld.

Parties are entitled to equal representation at the counting tables as well as on the other teams; but in the “core four,” there would be two Rs and either two Ds or a P and a D. The extra Ps or Ds would be extra checkers at the tables.

From Judge Keller’s order:

In this admittedly unusual case, there will be more people on the recount committee who support Democratic/Progressive candidate Ms. Weed than who support Republican candidate Peter Perley.

However, this is not prohibited […] The recount statutes expressly allow additional committee members – above and beyond the four core members – to be assigned to a team without requiring that they be assigned with regard to party or candidate affiliation. […] Thus, as long as the caller, observer, tally person, and double check person are properly assigned, it is not problemmatic to have additional team members disproportionately favoring one candidate or party.

In practice, the Progressives had fewer people in the room. There were four tables of five, with two Rs at each table, and two D’s and a P. The duties were basically rotated, and each batch of 50 ballots was hand-counted twice. The machine-tabulated totals from Enosburg tallied exactly with the manual recount. In Bakersfield, where all votes are hand-counted, Cindy Weed gained three votes.

And in Franklin County, the principle of party parity in recounts was upheld.

The photo is telling: a car’s rear window showing a ragged hole surrounded by the crackle-glass effect car windows always have when shattered.

That photo is in this afternoon’s St. Albans Messenger (online content behind paywall). An “openly gay Staples employee,” Nathan Chates, found that his car had been vandalized in broad daylight in a shopping center parking lot while he was at work. The rear window sporting a rainbow emblem and a “Got Gay?” sticker had been shattered with a rock.

So, what is it with these people? Suddenly they’re feeling empowered because the national tea partiers got some seats in Congress? Nah, that can’t be it – bigots and haters at this level don’t tend to follow the ins and outs of politics that much.

They’re feeling frustrated because their ‘copilot’ was defeated by a guy who actually helped queers get the right to legally marry each other? Maybe.

They’re ticked off that they can’t get jobs (can’t pass the drug screen) and here’s this gayboy actually working? More likely.

Right here, in St. Albans Town (there was a different episode of car vandalism a year or two ago in the City). Bigotry, that starts with B, that rhymes with T that stands for Trouble.

The other major question is where were the bystanders? The parking lot is hardly ever empty of moving cars and people walking. Why has no one come forward?

Could’ve been my car with the rainbow stripe in the back window, in a lot where I park when I need office supplies and groceries (Hannaford is next door).

Tomorrow I have to be in St. Albans. I think maybe I need some ink for my printer. I think I’ll ask for him by name and let him know he has a right to be angry and he’s not alone.

I was at our county campaign office yesterday when Jacques Rainville, a farmer from Highgate, came in. He handed me a letter he said he and his wife Jean had sent to Peter Shumlin’s and Brian Dubie’s campaigns via email seven days ago. So far he has received no response from either campaign.

“I got a lot of family, you know,” said Jacques Rainville. There are about 60 Rainville listings in the St. Albans area phonebook, though certainly not all of them are necessarily related to him. “If I could get an answer, I’d not only vote, but I’d take two more with me.” He asked whether I could get him a response; I said I’d try. The Rainvilles’ letter is below:

October 20, 2010

Hello,

I have a few questions I need answered before making my final decision on voting day.

1. As a farmer it is time for us to make a decent living. We are receiving the same prices for our milk as we did back in the 1960’s with 2010 expenses!

We would like to see you support and promote a supply management program that would give us the cost of production plus a reasonable profit where we are able to meet our commitments and pay a reasonable way to employees (who are not illegal). The price should be determined by the farmers NOT the industry and not by oversupply. When the price is determined by the farmers, there is not need for subsidies paid to the farmer by the government saving millions of dollars on taxes!

2.Renewable Energy. Something should be done about how our energy is produced. We feel strongly wind, solar & hydro power are the sources where our energy should be coming from in Vermont. We should be able to produce safe energy here, not from abroad, relying on foreign oil and electricity. This is an area where the stimulus money would prove most beneficial to EVERYONE to make it feasible for individuals to afford their own solar or windmill systems. The subsidy should be about 35% to compete with the foreign oils and so called cheap sources of energy.

[more below the fold]

3. The transportation in this country has got to change! Rail should never have become almost extinct. We have the most inefficient way of moving freight and people in this country. Rail is 400% more efficient than trucks. The railroads should be upgraded for high tech, fast transportation. The trucks are breaking up the roads faster than they can be repaired and are costing the lives of all who drive and ride on the roads.

As a governor, what are your feelings and would you promote and support the above issues? If you want us to elaborate more on the above issues, please feel free to contact us.

I look forward to hearing from you before voting day!

Thank you,

Mr. & Mrs. Jacques Rainville & family

Update: Susan Bartlett led the march; Madeleine Kunin and Cheryl Rivers flanked Shumlin at City Hall; Doug Racine led by modest example simply by showing up; Melinda Moulton vowed her support after telling a moving story of her mother’s early (and likely childbearing-related) death. There were women and men in attendance from as far away as Windsor County. It was a good turnout despite the weather. And good for Bartlett and Racine for continuing to turn out to get Peter Shumlin elected.

Today, Sunday, October 24, at noon, women will march from the Unitarian Church at the top of Church St in Burlington to City Hall. Women will express their support of the only major party candidate running for governor who fully believes in a woman’s right to medical privacy in reproductive decision-making and has pledged to protect that right: Peter Shumlin.

As Deb Markowitz said last week, “Brian Dubie has had the chance to answer this question at least five times: So Brian, would you restrict a woman’s right to choose if you become governor? Yes or No?”

And for those who think this issue “doesn’t matter,” here’s what front pager Julie Waters had to say in a comment on another diary:

Actually… his stand on abortion matters quite a bit[. I]f Dubie appoints a lot of similarly anti-abortion people to key AHS positions, they might not be able to legally prevent women from making their own choices, but they could set up scenarios designed to play on the fears of women who might be inclined to terminate their pregnancies, especially if they’re women seeking public services.

Not to mention potential bureaucratic roadblocks and backlogs, such as those facing people who need food assistance (more than 30 day delay in review of applications) in the new “streamlined” system engineered by the Republicans.

Join us in Burlington. For yourself and your daughters.

On Thursday Vermonters heard from the group I called “the gang of four,” the Democrats who ran for the chance to lead Vermont.

BURLINGTON–Susan Bartlett, Matt Dunne, Deb Markowitz and Doug Racine took Brian Dubie to task for his despicable campaign of lies. The former Shumlin rivals said Dubie had to run a campaign of distortion and cover up to hide his plans to decimate health care, education funding, seniors services and reproductive rights. The following are the highlights of the transcript from today’s press conference in Montpelier.

[press release from the VDP]

Good. More like this please, exposing the slick, twisty rhetoric (alternating with his slack-jawed, creepy stare) Dubie’s been mouthing.

Not to mention his wife’s  shrill insistence, ‘my husband is not a bully!’ Maybe not in person, but politically, he’s already said he’s targeting the most vulnerable for cuts in services. That’s definitely what a bully does.

And playing the ‘victim’ card is what bullies do when confronted. QED.

Presenting a united front against the Rovian campaign Dubie signed on to is a terrific use of these four credible, popular, experienced Vermont candidates who roused Vermonters in a non-presidential year to turn out for what are usually sleepy – if not pro forma – primaries.

Rally ’round, folks. Fire up the base and their families and friends by straight talk – and it would be especially effective for the Go4 to rally up in the regions where they did best.

More quotes from the press conference (via VDP press release) below the fold. Video of the press conference is available here.

Doug Racine:

If you check out the video, you’ll see Racine also take the press to task for promulgating the idea that ‘all politicians lie to get elected.’ He reminds them that it’s their job to find the truth.

This is a guy who, a couple of weeks ago, said that he was going to stop the negative advertising. And if you look at his latest ad it’s like a compilation of the worst charges that he’s been making against Peter Shumlin throughout this campaign. It’s about character assassination.  …

Who are the most vulnerable, in your mind, Brian? And who are those who are receiving services who you do not think are vulnerable? Tell us what human services programs you are going to cut and who is going to be affected. … [H]ow much pain and suffering are you willing to inflict on those Vermonters who are relying on a little bit of assistance to pay for your tax cuts for the wealthiest Vermonters who, by the way, are not asking for those tax cuts?

Deb Markowitz:

They don’t care if they destroy Peter Shumlin’s character and his reputation. They just want to win. And that’s not the Vermont way. 

Brian Dubie has had the chance to answer this question at least five times: So Brian, would you restrict a woman’s right to choose if you become governor? Yes or No. What about family planning or abstinence only sex education?

Matt Dunne:

I am disappointed to see Brian running the kinds of ads, again, that aren’t about the issues at hand. The tenor has gotten increasingly nasty …  And I am hoping he will see the anger that it’s causing voters.

My son goes to the same small school I went to: Hartland Elementary. … Brian, why do you want to eliminate local control from our education system?

Susan Bartlett:

It’s obvious that the Republicans’ approach to campaigning is to instill fear and to, even when corrected, to continue to say ‘this is the truth, this is the truth, this is the truth.’

In 2009, 50% of the households in the State of Vermont at some point during the year were called by collection agencies over their health care bills. Don’t tell me, Brian Dubie and Republicans, that the system we have is OK, and that we just need to nibble around the edges to make it better.                                                    

You can control the outside money and what they say if you choose to do it. And Brian is not choosing to do it. Brian is choosing to be negative. He is choosing to avoid issues. Vermonters deserve better. 

Brian Dubie can’t campaign on issues because he has no plan. Therefore, he’s campaigning with fear and smear. Don’t let him win.

We need more straight talk like this from a united Democratic front. Now is the time: 10 days to the election.

The annual pre-election Democratic gala known as the Autumn Harvest Rally was held Saturday night at the Old Labor Hall in Barre. Turnout was decent, with some exceptions.

There were a couple of empty spots in the horn of plenty:  the absences of two sets of major players.

None of the “gang of four” Democratic gubernatorial primary candidates put in an appearance; and neither did incumbents State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding or Attorney General Bill Sorrell.

I raised the question recently as to why Peter Shumlin hasn’t asked his former rivals to help out in making appearances on his behalf across the state. It’s hard to see any downside to that as a strategy. And they all offered, even promised they would help.

Pride? Maybe. There’s some saying about pride being maintained at some cost … we hope it’s not at the cost of the election.

At the Harvest event I heard that Deb Markowitz had made an ‘amazing’ number of fundraising calls for Peter Shumlin. And I know that Matt Dunne hosted a house party that raised about $20k.

Still, none of them could put in an appearance? Help rally the troops? Present at least the image of a still-united front working against the economic disaster awaiting us if Dubie wins?

At least as troubling was the absence of Sorrell and Spaulding – not only at the Harvest Rally, but also in the donor ranks for the coordinated campaign, at least according to what I hear.

[continued on the flip]

Neither Spaulding nor Sorrell has a strong opponent, and apparently neither has felt any need to actually, you know, campaign for his elected position. Both are reasonably popular – although the unions are not liking Jeb much just now (here’s a more positive analysis).

Sorrell’s popularity is to my mind totally inexplicable. I mean, here’s a guy who thinks his job as attorney general (not surgeon general) is to work on childhood obesity; who argued against marriage equality (in the original Baker v. State case) in the state supreme court, and then just last spring denied it when he was in search of signatures for his nominating petition; and who has sat back and not lifted a finger to alleviate federal discrimination against legally married Vermonters.

Talk about your fair-weather ‘friends!’ These solidly entrenched politicos apparently show up only when they want something from the party, and presumably for their taxpayer-funded jobs. Heaven forbid they should actually contribute something to the party that helped them get where they are now. Something for the campaign finance kitty, something for the folks, something simple, like showing up.

Speaking of weather, I kept waiting for someone, maybe Patrick Leahy (who, btw, handed VDP chairwoman Judy Bevans his donor match check, as much as I’ve ever made in a year), to say, “We’re proud to be Vermont Democrats, come hail or high water!”

Has anyone seen any of the primary rivals out on the hustings confronting Dubie’s lies and supporting Shumlin’s plans?

No? Me neither. Why not? I heard from one of them that Peter simply hasn’t asked.

And that’s both a shame and a mistake.

1. Write a letter to the editor and send it to every newspaper in the state. Object to the tactic, report the truth, support Peter Shumlin.

2. Log on to their online comment blogs and voice your objection there.

3. Make a donation to your local county Democratic Committee, the VDP, and/or the Shumlin campaign.

4. Volunteer with the Shumlin campaign or your local Democratic county committee.

5. Make a YouTube video about the robocalls and their distortions of reality – hey, have fun with it! Then post or tweet the link to all your Facebook friends and online pals. If it’s really good, post it here – who knows, maybe you’ll make the front page!

6. Go to every Dubie appearance you can: video it if you have a camera. Post videos to YouTube with appropriate commentary and fact-checking.

7. Strike up a conversation with Dubie’s paid green-shirts who follow him all over the state to wave his signs and take up turf in debate venues. Get names and addresses. Get them on camera if possible. Ask them where they’re from and how long they’ve lived in Vermont. Ask them what he stands for. Ask them why he’s lying about Shumlin’s plans.

8. Talk to your friends, acquaintances, and neighbors about Dubie’s distortions and why you’re voting for Shumlin.

9. Write another letter to the editor and send it. Write another check, then go volunteer a few more hours.

10. VOTE early (helps when candidates can “bank” early votes, and gets the determined Dem vounteers off your phone line).

Watching a Pete Seeger special last night, I got to wondering how the anti-war movement shrank to invisibility. And why we don’t have better songs to mobilize patriotic opposition.

Otherwise, open thread.