Quoted Text

It wouldn’t be an election season in the Town of Rotterdam without some political in-fighting, and boy do we have it this year.

The No New Tax Party, an independent group of people who say they are fiscally conservative, have filed a challenge in state Supreme Court in Schenectady County to be heard Wednesday against another independent party called the Lower Taxes Now party. Who are the Lower Taxes Now party? They’re the Democrats in Rotterdam. Who are the No New Tax Party? They’re Rotterdam Republicans who splintered off in 2009 – but who now have largely made nice with the Republicans and are now also running on the major party line this year.

Confused? How about the fact that the Democratic party abandoned the current Supervisor Democrat Frank Del Gallo, and Del Gallo tried unsuccessfully to win the Conservative line in a primary against the Dem’s chosen one, former Schenectady County Sheriff Harry Buffardi.

The No New Tax Party tried to get the Lower Taxes Now party’s petitions thrown out, but the board of elections didn’t invalidate enough to their liking. They will argue in front of Judge Barry Kramer that some petitioners don’t live in Rotterdam, aren’t registered to vote, and that the party’s name is too similar to there’s, thus creating voter confusion.

http://blog.timesunion.com/localpolitics/category/schenectady-county/rotterdam/

            I don't get it!  If election law specifies the legality of a signature, then it seems as though the law must be applied to the gathered petitions.  Seems like an integrity issue by the Board of Elections by failing to void non-registered voters and those without Town residency, NO???

Unless of course there's a handshake under the table

Quoted from 147

Unless of course there's a handshake under the table

          Maybe Judge Kramer will correct this, unless there are multiple handshakes!  

I'm sure there will be attorneys from both sides that will watch over these proceedings.

Quoted from bumblethru

I'm sure there will be attorneys from both sides that will watch over these proceedings.

Which begs the question ... paid for by whom?

Quoted from 147

Which begs the question ... paid for by whom?

Each party has their own.

WHAT F'EN PECKERHEADS......

It's the 'system' and 'laws' that are in place that we are all dealt.....like it or not!

Quoted from AVON

            I don't get it!  If election law specifies the legality of a signature, then it seems as though the law must be applied to the gathered petitions.  Seems like an integrity issue by the Board of Elections by failing to void non-registered voters and those without Town residency, NO???

It depends on the legal question...there are certain items on which the BOE has no authority to rule...such as forgeries, for example.
The Board can, however, invalidate signatures of individuals who are not registered to vote....or voters who do not live in the unit of
representation....among other things...but that doesn't mean they will. Both Election Commissioners must sustain an objection to a
signature in order for the signature to be invalidated. It is not uncommon for the Commisioner representing the Party being challenged
to stop sustaining objections to signatures when the number of invalid signatures begins to accumulate...with the hope that the
objector(s) will not be able to initiate the court challenge that becomes necessary at that point in order to get the remaining signatures
objected to invalidated...lack of resources and/or knowledge about the objection process are the most common obstacles.

There are still a number of objections to be settled, varying in nature...eligibility of witnesses, deficiencies in witness statements...to
name a few...some are grounds for invalidating an entire sheet of signatures.

I can tell you that the County petitions were even worse than those filed for the Town candidates...but the County candidates did
not file an Order to Show Cause, as I'm sure the Democrat Commissioner hoped they wouldn't.

Judge Kramer has signed an order directing the the Board of Elections/Demokratz to change their "Lower Taxes Now!"independent
ballot name...the agreed upon name was "Re-Unite Rotterdam" - lol.

Quoted from gadfly

Judge Kramer has signed an order directing the the Board of Elections/Demokratz to change their "Lower Taxes Now!"independent
ballot name...the agreed upon name was "Re-Unite Rotterdam" - lol.

Tooooo freakin' funny!!

Quoted from gadfly

Judge Kramer has signed an order directing the the Board of Elections/Demokratz to change their "Lower Taxes Now!"independent
ballot name...the agreed upon name was "Re-Unite Rotterdam" - lol.

They should have changed it to the WTF party like I said a year ago!

The WTF liine is the line Koza has.. As in WTF is Koza runnning for today!? LOL!

As far as the name goes... Who cares? The fact is the dems have 5 lines and the reps have 1 lol... Working together works

Quoted from gadfly

Judge Kramer has signed an order directing the the Board of Elections/Demokratz to change their "Lower Taxes Now!"independent
ballot name...the agreed upon name was "Re-Unite Rotterdam" - lol.

Did the judge rule on the validity of the signatures?  Does renaming their line on the ballot indicate that they had enough valid signatures to run this independent line?