2022-11-07-BOR-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The Board unanimously determined that the Complaint is deficient for two reasons. First, G.L. c. 51 § 48 is not the proper statute to raise the issues in the Complaint. That statute In other words, G.L c. 51 § 48 is not meant to be the mechanism for removing previously correctly registered individuals from the voter rolls; that function is performed by § 38. Second, even if the statute applied here, a change of address for mailing purposes is not the equivalent of a change of domicile for voting purposes. A person's domicile is usually the place where he has his home, meaning where he dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social Pos Two members of the Board noted the following five additional deficiencies with the Complaint. the complainant part to be the basis of action by others who are entitled to like relief and by public officers. Exhibit B \[to the Complaint\] is illegally or incorrectly registered to vote in Lexington because, as evidenced by their new address, they have moved outside of Lexington to another state or to The support for that statement is the form declaration from Mr. Stuart, which is not notarized. Mr. Stuart is not a registered voter in Lexington; he resides in Florida. To the extent that the evidentiary support for the complaint comes through him, and not through personal knowledge of the individuals listed in the complaint, it is insufficient under the statute. Third, the complaint applies to 754 individuals registered to vote in Lexington. The statute 51, § 48. The CD of complaints as to each individual does not remedy this problem, because those complaints do not contain any evidence, in the form of a declaration or otherwise, regarding the alleged change of address. The same Stuart declaration is attached to each individual complaint, but neither that declaration nor the other attachment contain any reference to the individual complained of. Fourth, the Stuart declaration is based on information that has been potentially illegally gathered from the USPS National Change of Address (NCOA) system. That system is not publicly accessible. Fifth, the Complaint is nearly identical to other challenges filed in multiple municipalities in the Massachusetts Fifth Congressional District at the statutory deadline for such complaints, days election officials and possibly disenfranchise voters, and thus function as an abuse of process rather than a legitimate use.