About that Register of Deeds primary race

[ron_newman]

My friend siderea spent several hours this weekend researching the candidates for Middlesex South Register of Deeds, so the rest of us don't have to ;-) She recommends a vote for Maryann Heuston, and you can read her totally awesome public post on the subject here:

siderea: : Whatchadoin Thursday? Southern Middlesex Register of Deeds Race

Her post includes links to several relevant newspaper articles and videos of televised debate forums, if you want to look into the matter further before voting this Thursday. The comments are well worth reading, too.

ETA 9/4 14:56: Her post endorsed Maryann Heuston, but now has an addendum saying that she may be changing her mind based on new information, and to check back later tonight. Hmmm.

ETA 9/4 23:55: She now says "My recommendation stands" (for Maryann Heuston).

ETA 9/5: The Somerville News sent a questionnaire to all the Register of Deeds candidates, and got responses back from all of them except for Antonelli. But Concannon seems to have sent them a press release rather than answering the newspaper's questions.

Comments

[m-b-w.livejournal.com]

I was already planning on voting for Heuston but am interested in checking back with siderea's post later after seeing this at the end of it:

[ETA 9/4/12 14:00: I just got some information which may change my endorsement, info of the Your Candidate May Be Eating Babies sort. Please check back after 23:00pm 9/4 for an update.]

[ron_newman]

Not sure what's going on here, but I'll edit this post appropriately (and then again later tonight)

ETA 9/4 23:55: She now says "My recommendation stands." (for Heuston)

[thanny2000.livejournal.com]

I also watched the LWV video over the weekend to figure out whom to vote for. I am more of a lurker than a poster on this site so I'm pretty much an unknown entity so I will disclose that I am a practicing lawyer. Although my practice has not called for any interaction with the Registry of Deeds, I have many cases in the Probate and Family Courts as well as other courts. The problems, as described in predominantly in the debate, are very similar to problems currently afflicting the PFCs. I was concerned that during the debate, most of the candidates, including, I believe Maryann Heuston, seemed to offer a solution that was essentially "get more money (from the Legislature)!" This is easier said than done. There is a low-volume crisis in the courts and a large portion of the problem is lack of money. In our current fiscal environment, this is at least an uphill battle. If you're interested in reading more about the court crisis, the Mass Bar Association has been giving good coverage and advocacy.

My opinion of Maryann Heuston is that she gives the appearance of intelligence and competence as an administrator. However, her lack of any sort of legal background is very troubling to me. In the statement she gave during the debate, when asked to describe a typical filing, it was clear that she has no clue about how the place operates. Stating that there are already other people trained as attorneys in the Registry is not a satisfactory resolution, in my opinion. The one who seemed to understand the place best already and spoke of pragmatic solutions was Tiz Doto. I looked at his web site (and any other candidate web sites that I could find) and one thing that impressed me there was his pledge not to serve for more than two terms if elected.

Finally, I was put off by Maryann Heuston's statement at some point during the LWV debate about "when" she was elected, not if the voters decided to elect her.

Just a few pennies worth of opinion from the peanut gallery!

[sparr0.livejournal.com]

I'm new to MA politics. Why do we assume that the winner of the primary will run unopposed? I'm used to seeing the second or third place in the primary on the real ballot in such situations. Is it customary for them to just not run up here?

[ron_newman]

Because no Republican is running for this office, and (to my knowledge) no independent is either.

[sparr0.livejournal.com]

So then we would have a ballot with just 2-3 Democrats on it. You didn't really answer my question.

[ron_newman]

The three recognized party primaries (Democratic, Republican, and Green-Rainbow) each select a single candidate who advances to the general election. An independent can also run in the general election if s/he collects enough signatures.

For this race, six candidates are running in the Democratic primary. No candidates are running in the Republican or Green-Rainbow primaries. Unless there's an independent running in the general election, the Democratic nominee will be elected unopposed in November.

(This is also the case for the state representative district that covers most of Somerville. Incumbent Denise Provost has a Democratic opponent, but no Republican or Green-Rainbow or (to my knowledge) independent opponent. So if she wins this Thursday, she's as good as re-elected.)

[sparr0.livejournal.com]

What you describe is unlike the election process I am familiar with from various other states (TN, GA, MS, OH) prior to moving to MA. Is there anywhere I can find further info about how such matters are handled here?

[ron_newman]

This is pretty much the same process I remember from when I lived in Ohio.

I suggest looking over the various documents at the Elections Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth office.

This one may be the most helpful, though it's written for potential candidates rather than voters: Don't Just Stand There ... Run! A Candiate's Guide To the 2012 State Election

[sparr0.livejournal.com]

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/candidates_guide_2012.pdf seems to have the relevant info distilled out. And yes, it does seem to be rather different than I am used to. Judging by that document, and assuming it's an accurate representation of the real process rules here... If a primary candidate wants to run in the real election even if they lose the primary, they will have to have filed for nomination twice earlier in the year, once as a party candidate and once as a non-party candidate. That is very very weird to me.

[ron_newman]

No. You are not allowed to run as both a party and a non-party candidate. You have to choose one or the other. If you lose in the party primary and still want people to vote for you in the general election, you must conduct a write-in (or sticker) campaign.

[sparr0.livejournal.com]

Well then, that is particularly surprising to me. Thanks for clearing that up.

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

I've never seen this in any of the (4) states I've lived, either. I'd be curious to see links regarding where it's allowed.

[sparr0.livejournal.com]

It's hard to provide links to a negative... Tennessee, for example, doesn't make the distinction in question here. I'm a bit miffed at the idea of an election commission that pays attention to the goings on of non-governmental third parties.

[ceo]

I can think of two examples of primary losers winning the general election offhand. In 2006, Senator Joe Lieberman (then-D-CT) lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont, but ran in the general election as an independent and won, helped in no small part by the Republicans throwing their own candidate under the bus and giving Lieberman a ton of funding and support. He is now officially an independent, but caucuses with the Democrats (and occasionally even votes with them). In 2010, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) lost the Republican primary to Joe Miller. AK has a "sore loser" law like the one in MA, so she had to run in the general as a write-in, and still won (it helped that Miller was a particularly loathsome Tea Party nutcase). Unlike CT, she was able to still run as a Republican.

[ceo]

I'm confused by this. If primary losers can run in the general under the same party, what's the point of primaries?

[sparr0.livejournal.com]

Well, in most places and most races, primaries don't have any official weight, they are just a bunch of folks (the party) having a private election funded by the state. If, for example, the winner of the republicrat presidential primary turns out to be a video-confirmed child molester, rest assured he won't be that party's actual candidate in the election.

In most places, the primary just decides who the party gives their official support to, usually in the form of rubber-stamping X-thousand pre-committed signatures onto their nomination paperwork and funding their further campaign.

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

Hm.. I wonder if this is really true about "most places"? I moved to MA from MD just around voting age, but I vaguely remember it being similar there to here.

The Primary process you describe seems like a colossal waste. But this does sort of explain why Primaries have what seem to me to be extraordinarily low voter turn out. If they matter in some states and not others then when people move from state to state they might not understand the process well.

I wish we had nationally standardized rules for Federal Level elections at least.

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

At her own campaign kick-off, Denise Provost endorsed Heuston. Does anyone have information as to whether Provost changed her position? If not, personally, I put a lot of faith in her endorsements.

[patriarchy police (from livejournal.com)]

Where do the candidates stand on the Union Square Affordable Housing Project?

[ron_newman]

Does that somehow relate to the duties of the Register of Deeds?