Tag Archives: Jim Condos

Coyote over the cliff

Oh, here comes David Sunderland, woebegone chair of the Vermont Republican Party, with his biennial tradition: the totally cooked-up accusation that the Secretary of State has his finger on the electoral scale.

I suppose it’s only natural. After all, Republican Secretaries of State have a long and sordid tradition of playing partisan games. (See: Kris Kobach, Ken Blackwell, and Katherine Harris) But our guy, Jim Condos, may be a solid Democrat, but he’s never given any hint of impropriety in the handling of his official duties.

TFW you've hit "Send" on a stupid press release.

TFW you’ve just been @pwned by Jim Condos..

Still,;like Wile E. Coyote chasing the roadrunner, Sunderland can’t stop himself from trying. Remember two years ago, when he accused an Elections Office employee of partisan bias — without a single shred of evidence that the worker had acted improperly? Sunderland didn’t give a damn about imperiling a man’s career and good name, if he could score a few partisan points in so doing.

This time, Sunderland is raising a stink about the distribution of ballots for the November elections. He notes that different communities are getting ballots at different times. Some have already started mailing ballots to voters who want to vote early.

He raises an “equal protection issue” with some voters getting their ballots earlier than others, and thus having more time to ponder their choices.

Uh-huh. Like those voters are going to spend from now until Election Eve intensively studying their choices — and people who dot n’t their ballots until sometime next week will never be able to catch up.

But that’s not all.

Continue reading

Early voting reaches modern high

As of yesterday afternoon, nearly 20,000 Vermonters had submitted ballots for today’s primary election. The actual number, per Secretary of State Jim Condos: 19,904. With one full day to go. (More than 25,000 voters requested early ballots, so there’s room for the record total to grow.)

The old record was 18,210, set in the year 2010 when we had a red-hot five-way Democratic primary for governor.  So, a healthy pre-primary turnout and one more indication that the concept of “Election Day” is becoming less relevant. (At the bottom of this post, you’ll find a list of primary turnout figures from 2000 through 2014, prepared by none other than Mr. Condos.)

So, let’s trot out the old abacus and see what we might be looking at for total turnout. To err on the side of caution, we’ll assume that no additional ballots arrive before the deadline, 5:00 p.m. today.

Continue reading

“Election Day” is an obsolete concept

Us political observers haven’t taken sufficient notice of the fact that early voting is making the idea of “Election Day” ever more irrelevant. And that’s a good thing.

Well, except when a politician flip-flops on a key issue late in the game.

Vermont hasn’t gone as far as some jurisdictions in abandoning the calendrical imperative as a limit to voting rights. Oregon’s elections are entirely conducted by mail, with each registered voter automatically receiving a ballot. We don’t do that, but at least we make ballots freely available either by mail or in person at your town clerk’s office for more than a month before election day.

Although the service is underpublicized (Jim Condos doesn’t have an advertising budget), more and more Vermonters are taking advantage. According to VTDigger, roughly 17 percent of ballots for the “August 9” primary will be returned in person or by mail before the polls open.

This is inconvenient for pollsters and pundits and for politicians crafting last-minute strategery, but it’s a very good thing if it enables more people to vote.

Continue reading

There’s a gnat buzzing Beth Pearce’s head

Oh goodie. In this campaign season full of ill-considered, no-hoper, “who asked for this” candidacies, comes yet another: a 30-year-old financial analyst with no political experience who’s only lived in Vermont for four years has decided to challenge State Treasurer Beth Pearce for the Democratic nomination.

Hahahaha.

You go to any campaign or party event, Beth Pearce gets louder cheers and more applause than anybody else. She is incredibly popular. She is not losing the primary, no way, nohow.

The financial analyst in question, Richard Dunne, is running because he favors divestment of state funds from fossil fuel stocks. He’s on the same page as Governor Shumlin among many others. And Pearce’s steadfast opposition to divestment has been a thorn in Shumlin’s side since he started tub-thumping the issue earlier this year.

But there’s no way he’s backing a challenger. There’s no way Dunne can ride this one issue to victory in the primary. And Pearce’s stand on divestment should not put her in danger of losing her post.

Continue reading

State Senate trying to Norquist ethics reform

Vermont’s Most Sclerotic Deliberative Body has been taking its time with a proposal to set up a state Ethics Commission. Much more time than they took with legalizing marijuana, and probably longer than they’ll take with the frickin’ budget.

Why the slow play? Well, the Senate’s point person on ethics reform makes it abundantly clear.

Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham and chairwoman of the Government Operations Committee, said, “Because the press keeps saying that we’re the only state without an ethics commission and clearly we have something to hide … I don’t really believe that.”

Credit to the Associated Press’ Dave Gram for capturing that entry into the Quote of the Year competition.

Jeezum Crow. The Senator in charge of ethics reform doesn’t believe ethics reform is necessary. She blames the media for fomenting “a lack of faith in government officials.”

Methinks the good Senator has been in Montpelier too long. She’s been so deep in the system for so long, she’s lost all perspective.

Continue reading

A Vermont state of mind

Looks like Garrett Graff hasn’t given up his ambition of becoming Vermont’s next Lieutenant Governor. As VPR’s Peter Hirschfeld reports, Graff is seeking an official ruling on his eligibility for the 2-16 ballot.

He seems to have run afoul of an oddly-worded Constitutional provision that appears to require four years of Vermont residency preceding the election. Graff, however, had lived in Washington, D.C. for ten years before returning to Vermont, uhh, two months ago.

By the way, is it just me, or does it seem like our Constitution was written by a bunch of drunks? (I mean, “he shall have resided in this State four years next preceding the day of the election,” WTF?) There’s a lot of stuff in there that I’d change if I had a magic wand. Unfortunately, Our Framers devised a maddeningly difficult process for amending the Constitution, so I think we’re stuck with it.

Anyway. First problem with Graff’s request? There is no process for an official ruling. (That darn Constitution again.) Secretary of State Jim Condos says it’s a matter for the courts to decide. Which would involve (a) Graff formally launching a campaign and (b) someone filing a court challenge against him. And even if that process began tomorrow, would the courts deliver a ruling in time for Graff to pursue a credible candidacy? Seems unlikely.

The impression is that Graff failed to do his homework.

Continue reading

Another political scofflaw

Even as Garrett Graff maintains radio silence about his possibly illegal candidacy for Lieutenant Governor, another political hopeful has run afoul of Vermont election law.

Don’t get your knickers in a twist; it’s only Brooke Paige.

Yes, the best-dressed man in Vermont politics has a problem with his 2016 plans. The Burlington Free Press, November 30:

Brooke Paige of Washington has also said he plans to run in the Democratic primary for governor and attorney general, as well as seeking the attorney general nomination on the Republican side.

Vermont state law:

A person’s name shall not be listed as a candidate on the primary ballot of more than one party in the same election.

Oopsie.

Continue reading

How to kill a political career in one easy step

Ruh-roh, Raggy. Looks like a budding politico is in danger of failing to get out of the starting gate.

Following the news that D.C. journalist (and Vermont native) Garrett Graff was coming home to run for lieutenant governor, Seven Days’ Paul Heintz pointed out the elephant in the room: State law requires candidates for the state’s top two offices to “have resided in this State four years next preceding the day of the election.”

Secretary of State Jim Condos felt the need to consult with the Attorney General’s office over that tortuous bit of legalese. Well, he has, and in a follow-up post by Terri Hallenbeck, the news isn’t good for Young Graff.

…Condos said that after studying residency requirements for candidates in the Constitution of Vermont and consulting with the Attorney General’s Office, “We are not sure how Mr. Graff could meet this.”

Hoo boy. This could be the biggest political boner in Vermont since “Six Teats.”

Continue reading

Sorrell vs. the record, part 2: Campaign reimbursements

Sorry for the delay in this continuing series; it’s tough work, slogging through a solid hour of Bill Sorrell. He is remarkably inarticulate for such a prominent figure.

SorrellDoggAnyway, I’m taking a closer look at Our Eternal General’s comments in an interview
with VTDigger’s Mark Johnson. I think it’s worthwhile because this was the first time Sorrell has been quizzed at length about allegations of campaign finance funny business and excessive coziness with high-powered lawyers soliciting state contracts.

Part 1 compared Sorrell’s remarks with the public record about the MTBE lawsuit. Today, we turn to Sorrell’s fuzzy reporting of expense reimbursements by his campaign fund to himself.

The matter was raised last spring by Seven Days’ Paul Heintz:

Several times a year, candidates must publicly disclose each campaign expenditure they make, “listed by amount, date, to whom paid, for what purpose,” according to state law.

A review of Sorrell’s recent filings shows that he has routinely ignored the rules. Sixteen times over the past four years, Sorrell’s campaign has reimbursed him for hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of dollars’ worth of expenses paid out of his own pocket. In each instance, the campaign provided only a vague explanation of what Sorrell bought with the campaign cash — and never once did it disclose who it paid.

Sorrell’s response: Hey, a lot of people do it that way.

Continue reading

Pawn Sacrifice

I suppose David Sunderland got what he wanted.

His complaint to the Secretary of State’s office, which he made public even before Jim Condos had a chance to respond, gave him a few headlines on the slowest news day of the week. And that’s all Sunderland really wanted; if he had had an honest beef, he would have taken it to Condos first and gone to the media only if he was dissatisfied with the official response.

In the process, Sunderland blithely imperiled a member of Condos’ staff.

For those just tuning in, Sunderland’s ire was directed at JP Isabelle, who offended Sunderland’s tender sensibilities by posting a comment on this here blog. Sunderland asserted that “Isabelle’s credentials as a neutral and nonpartisan administrator have been irreversibly undermined,” and demanded that Isabelle be removed from any “administrative obligations, input or influence in elections.”

Which stops just short of demanding Isabelle’s termination, but c’mon. He’s an administrator in the Elections Division. What kind of job could he hold where he wouldn’t have any “input or influence in elections”?

It seems that Sunderland doesn’t mind jeopardizing a person’s livelihood and reputation if he can score a cheap political point in the process. JP Isabelle is simply collateral damage. And that, in my view, is despicable.

Continue reading