HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-11-07-BOR-min
Town of Lexington
Board of Registrars
Gordon M. Jones III Fax: (781) 861- 2754
Judith E. Moore Tel: (781) 862-0500 x4558
Mark R. Vitunic
Mary de Alderete, Clerk
MINUTES OF MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Registrars was held on November 7, 2022 in the Estabrook Room in
the Cary Memorial Building, and called to order by Chair Gordon Jones at 5:10 PM. Registrars
Judith Moore and Mark Vitunic were also present. Town Clerk, Mary de Alderete, and Christina
Marshall, Town Counsel, were present. Sophie Culpepper, LexObserver attended as a reporter.
Complaint Received November 3, 2022
Chair Jones noted that the Board was meeting with Counsel Marshall in order to discover how a
response to the Complaint received on November 3, 2022 alleging that 754 individuals were
illegally or incorrectly registered to vote would be handled. He further inquired if Counsel knew
of any other municipalities who may have received the same complaint.
th
Counsel Marshall noted that as far as she knew, they were only sent to towns and cities in the 5
Congressional District. She further noted that the complaints were not all from the same person,
but did have similar content.
Chair Jones asked if Counsel would be coordinating with any other Towns they represented
when preparing the response.
Counsel Marshall stated that while there would be an overall similarity in substance,
coordination had not yet happened, and the timing might be different in each case and also
explained the differences in moving to an address temporarily, such as for college, and moving
to become a voter elsewhere.
Counsel Marshall then gave an overview of possible defects to the complaint, including that the
had not been. She then worked with the Board to identify possible reasons for returning the
C omplaint for specific reasons.
1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02420
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.
Chair Jones moved that Counsel should prepare a draft letter to be hand delivered with their
response that would note the deficiencies. The Board voted unanimously to this approach.
Counsel Marshall said that she would start the draft the same evening, and forward it to the
Board when completed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:57 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary de Alderete
Town Clerk