Schools Committee Vote Faces Recount

For the first time since it moved to a computerized voting system in 1997, the city of Cambridge will hold a recount after last week’s closely contested school committee election.

The Cambridge Board of Election Commissioners voted unanimously yesterday to certify petitions from three candidates contesting last week’s election and seeking a recount.

Just seven votes separated school committee candidates Susana M. Segat, Richard Harding Jr. and Nancy Walser. In the official tally after election day, Harding and Walser won seats, while Segat, a three-term incumbent, lost hers.

With such a small margin separating the candidates, it is very possible that the recount could change the result of the the election.

The recount will begin Nov. 26 at 9 a.m. at the board’s old offices on Green Street.

Complicating the recount process, Cambridge uses a proportional representation (PR) system of voting, which allows voters to assign weighted ranks to multiple candidates.

Once a candidate fulfills the quota of votes needed to win, the extra votes are reallocated to the next candidate. Because the extra transfer votes are randomly chosen and may rank different candidates second, they could change in a recount, altering the outcome.

“It’s like a 17,000-piece puzzle,” said Election Commissioner Lynne A. Molnar.

The overall tenor of the board meeting was calm, in stark contrast to the partisan wrangling during the Florida recount in last fall’s presidential election. Attorneys for the three petitioning candidates asked many of the same questions and made similar comments to the board.

Segat, Harding and Walser hold similar views on the major issues, another difference from the Florida recount. The progressive Cambridge Civic Association (CCA) has endorsed all three.

The board unanimously passed a motion appointing Theresa S. Neighbor, the executive director of the Election Commission, the administrator of the recount. Neighbor and the recount’s auditor will put together a plan to conduct the recount by Nov. 21, when the board holds its next meeting.

The city’s guidelines are not very specific, leaving officials some leeway in determining procedures.

Election Commission Chair Rusty Drugan said that time and cost would be a consideration.

“We don’t have an unlimited budget to do whatever we might like,” Drugan said.

Before the recount can begin, officials must decide which ballots to include in the count. Ballots that were originally included but were challenged could be excluded from the recount if determined ineligible. Conversely, ballots that were originally escrowed—cast but not counted, pending verification—could be included in the recount of the voters who cast them are determined to be eligible. Rejected absentee ballots and rejected absentee ballot applications could also change the status of individual ballots.

“These are issues we will have to resolve up front, before we start opening up the bins,” Drugan said.

The board said the current official tally includes 11 ballots from challenged voters. Because of the city’s PR system, excluding ballots that had been counted previously could throw off the whole tally.

“The right to keep a ballot of a challenged voter in the pool will change the whole distribution,” Molnar said.

Challenged voters are virtually always people who are marked as inactive voters because they did not respond to the most recent census, and who could not produce identification at the polls. Voters who did respond to the census do not have to produce identification, but are required to give their name and address.

If an inactive voter does not have identification, the warden at the polling place must challenge the vote.

The law also allows any citizen to challenge a voter. The Election Commission said they believe there was one citizen challenge in last week’s election.

Escrowed votes, the votes of people not included on the precinct voter rolls, further complicate the recount. These votes do not go into the scanner for inclusion in the count, but are held in envelopes to be examined in case of a recount.

However, Molnar said escrowed votes are often illegitimate.

“Most often, there’s no record of a voter application,” Molnar said.

Absentee ballots are already included in the count, except for rejected absentee ballots. As of yesterday’s meeting, the board was unable to quantify the number of absentee ballots that were rejected.

Cambridge moved to a computerized voting system four years ago, and has not yet set up a recount procedure to use with the new software. Neighbor said she would meet with computer consultant and voting software expert Stephen H. Owades to devise the electronic recount guidelines.

Several people at the board meeting praised the computerized voting system and defended its role in a recount.

“We can achieve a better process by spending more time looking at ballots, and less time moving them around in piles,” said Owades, refering to the old recount procedure that involved a complicated hand recounting process.

The Election Commission said it will notify the candidates as well as the Mass. Secretary of State no later than three days prior to the recount, in accordance with state law.

The board said that although they would seek the cooperation of all candidates, the commissioners would make the final decisions on the recount process.

“Bottom line: The four commissioners have the authority to approve a process. We are seeking input, but it’s not going to be a big public discussion,” Molnar said.

Election Commissioner Artis B. Spears said she hoped the recount could be completed in five business days.

Segat declined to comment on her political and legal plans. When asked what she would do during the two weeks until the recount, she said, “I’m going to cook a turkey, and hopefully my kids will eat it.”