davis_square | Preliminary election results

What was really annoying was Fred Berman standing within three feet of the exit to my polling place and accosting voters on their way out. It's legal since he wasn't on the ballot, but it's a great way to alienate voters. Way to go Fred.

He ambushed me as I was getting out of my car when I got home. My cat was loudly meowing the whole time (he wanted to go in) and I had shopping bags in both hands. He may be well intentioned, but he's bad at reading other people. Or he just doesn't care. Either way, what you're saying doesn't surprise me.

Having said that, I had a good time: he didn't realize his questionnaire answers made him the candidate who hates dogs, and he didn't mention his MVTF association until I brought it up.

Hates dogs?

Read the dog questionnaire he filled out... you had a link to it in one or more of your earlier posts.

I'm reading it now, but I don't see where you get "hates dogs" from it.

Neither did he!

Here's some snippets:

"That good work could be easily undone by an irresponsible dog owner whose dog causes property damage or an injury sufficiently serious to be newsworthy. Apart from any City initiatives, I would encourage SomDog to continue to promote owner responsibility (perhaps including training and "certification" for new dog owners)."

This is question five complete:

"5. Do you own a dog/dogs? No. My wife and I own two cats. While they are not kept on leashes, we understand and practice responsible pet ownership: they were adopted from a shelter, they were spayed/neutered, they receive regular veterinary care, we have installed a "hidden"(electric) fence that prevents them from wandering the neighborhood, we periodically spray portions of our neighbor's garden that become attractive places to dig, and we maintain clean litterboxes so that our cats do not begin to seek alternate places to poop."

and from the "Tell Us About Your Dogs" question:

"Our neighbors across the street have a dog that is very friendly, and probably a little too careless about cars and pedestrians when he is temporarily off leash."

and

"Over the years, most of my experiences with dogs have been positive. However, I have been bitten three times, twice while I was riding a bicycle (in Maryland (about 20 years ago), after which I went through the rabies series, and before that in Oregon), and once when I was canvassing (about 25 years ago) in some South Shore community. So, I appreciate both how
dogs can be part of the family, and how dogs can be frighteningly out of control."

Nobody else who filled those out regaled us with how many times they'd been attacked by dogs.

I guess I'm more sympathetic to him, becuase I'm also someone who was repeatedly bitten at a young age (and on a bicycle, too!). It took me until my late 20s to be able to behave at all normally around dogs.

Granted, but

1) When asked about dogs in OUR community, would you put down how you'd been attacked by dogs in other cities?

2) You've been attacked by people in a cult, but that didn't put you off people altogether, did it? Dogs are like people: there's crazy ones and there's ones that aren't.

By the way, I ran into Bill White walking his dog in front of my synagogue, just before Kol Nidre. I reminded him that he had not yet returned the dog questionnaire ;-)

Links for people who stumble upon these comments later:'
Somerville Dog Owners' Group: 2007 Municipal Elections.
Fred Berman's response to the som|dog questionnaire

The law definitely prohibits electioneering within N feet of the polls for candidates who are on the day's ballot.

But I'm not sure whether it prohibits campaigning by candidates who are NOT on the day's ballot, or whether it prohibits circulation of petitions. Anyone know for sure?

I think it's 150 feet. Anyway, we talked to both Rebekah and to one of the elections commissioners (Anthony Alibrandi?) who happened to be standing near by. They both said that there was nothing to be done about it since he's not on the ballot. The elections commissioner didn't like it at all because it confuses the police who are used to enforcing the 150 feet rule. There was also someone with a petition to "draft Gore" to run for president standing at the poll exit. Only slightly less annoying.

Thanks for filling in the N feet. A Google search for

"150 feet" massachusetts election

finds a document entitled ELECTION DAY LEGAL SUMMARY from the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office. Unfortuantely it's an MS Word document, but I'll quote the relevant section here:

Activities in the Polling Location
On Election Day, certain activities are prohibited within the polling location and within 150 feet of the polling place. General Law chapter 54, section 65 prohibits within 150 feet of a polling location, among other things, the posting, exhibition, circulation, or distribution of material--including pasters, stickers, posters, cards, handbills, placards, pictures or circulars--intended to influence the action of the voter. G. L. 54, § 65 (2002 ed.). Consistent with the activities restricted by statute, the implementing regulations prohibit the solicitation of votes for or against, or any other form of promotion or opposition of, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election. 950 C.M.R. § 54.04(22)(d). Accordingly, a person standing within 150 feet of a polling location, including observers in the polling location, may not: hold any campaign sign; hand any person literature intended to influence the voter’s action at the polls; wear any campaign buttons or identifying signage; solicit a person’s vote for or against a candidate or question on the ballot; or, distribute stickers. Circulators of nomination papers, initiative and referenda petitions are also restricted from soliciting signatures within 150 feet of a building entrance door to a polling place. G. L. c. 54, § 65 (2002 ed.). This is true even where the nomination papers, initiative petition or referendum have nothing to do with the current election.

From looking just at this and not at the actual laws being cited, the activities of both Berman and the "Draft Gore" folks seem to fall into a legal gray area. The petition that the "Draft Gore" people are circulating is not a formal nomination paper, nor is it an initiative or referendum.

I'd hope (unrealistically, of course) that the people involved would have enough sense to not crowd the polls. But every little bit helps in deciding who to vote for... though maybe not the way they intended.

It seems to me that both of them were legal, and not in a gray area. The restriction on nomination papers, initiatives, and referenda seems to specifically list those forms of signature gathering that have specific legal impact in Massachusetts. It seems pretty clear that by listing those specifically, rather than restricting "gathering signatures" or some other more general activity, the legislature must have intended to NOT restriction informal signature gathering, petitions without legal force, etc. And since that is the only portion of this law that makes an exception and covers things not related to the current election, it also seems clear that they meant to limit all the other restrictions only to things that *are* about what's on the ballot.

In other words, this looks like a law written with the specific intent of allowing other political activity (inclduing both Fred and Draft Gore, in this instance). If it weren't for that, they could've written a simpler, broader law.

The cited statute (Mass. General laws chapter 54, section 65) is here:

"no other poster, card, handbill, placard, picture or circular intended to influence the action of the voter shall be posted, exhibited, circulated or distributed in the polling place, in the building where the polling place is located, on the walls thereof, on the premises on which the building stands, or within one hundred and fifty feet of the building entrance door to such polling place."

and

"No person shall be allowed to collect signatures upon petitions, referendum petitions or nomination papers within one hundred and fifty feet from the building entrance door to a polling place."

That seems more general than the "Legal Summary" document that I quoted from above -- it seems to prohibit all petition gathering of any kind.

The fine for violating any of this is derisory - $20.

Unfortunately the cited Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 950 C.M.R. § 54.04(22)(d), is not online, unless I want to pay a subscription fee.

The reference is bad or old. It should be 950 C.M.R. §52.03(22)(d) which says:

(d) Activities at Polling Place. Within 150 feet of a polling place as defined in 950 CMR 52.03(22)(c), no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election.[emphasis mine]

So it's pretty clear (to me at least) that what Fred was doing is legal. That doesn't stop it from being a bad idea, though.

The draft Gore woman is on thinner ice, though, as the preceding paragraph (950 C.M.R. §52.03(22)(c) ) says:

...No person shall collect or solicit signatures on nomination papers or petitions of any kind within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building....[emphasis mine]

Thank you! Do you have a printed copy of the C.M.R., or can you point me to an online version?

Lexis

With respect to the discussion about my speaking to voters at the polling place ...

Some people appreciate being approached by a candidate, and others find it annoying. I try to approach people respectfully, and if they aren't interested, I leave them alone. While I was at the polling place on Tuesday, I only introduced myself to people after they had voted. Most of the people I approached opted to listen to what I had to say. I suspect that the large majority of those who chose not to speak with me would have made the same choice had I knocked on their door or called them on the phone.

As to the question about whether I like dogs, the answer is it depends. I like friendly dogs, and I avoid dogs that appear to be unfriendly. Likewise, I enjoy spending time with people who are friendly, and, when I'm relaxing, I try to avoid people who are hostile.

Just as my experiences of having bit hit by cars while cycling have taught me to be more cautious on the road, so, being bitten by dogs (and scratched by cats) has taught me to be careful of animals that I do not know.

As to my comments about responsible pet ownership, I was complimenting Som Dog on their campaign to promote responsible pet ownership, and pointing out that too often, it is the bad examples that people remember longest. Som Dog's approach to emphasizing responsible ownership is both appropriate and a smart strategy for gaining greater acceptance of dogs in parks and on the bikepath.

Preliminary election results

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

electioneering at polling places

Re: electioneering at polling places

Re: electioneering at polling places

Re: electioneering at polling places

Re: electioneering at polling places

Re: electioneering at polling places

Re: electioneering at polling places

Re: electioneering at polling places