[ back ]
Hunting Valley secrecy unbound
(by Dave Lange - December 23, 2009)
COUNTY LINE, BY DAVE LANGE
Hunting Valley secrecy unbound
Contrary to common belief, the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote in federal, state and local elections by secret ballot.
The recent threat of a post-election inquisition in Hunting Valley bore that out. While the intent of secret ballots is to prevent the intimidation of voters, the question being asked by certain Hunting Valley officials was how to intimidate certain voters after their ballots were cast.
There are few secrets within the close-knit confines of the village of some 750 residents that straddles the Cuyahoga-Geauga County line. If you claim to be a qualified voter in Hunting Valley, people in village government will know who you are.
That became evident after the Nov. 3 election, when counts from the election boards of the two counties indicated that the vote for second and third place in the five-candidate race for three Village Council seats was too close to call.
Initial, unofficial counts showed incumbent Councilman Bruce V. Mavec in second place with 189 votes, political newcomer Gerald B. Medinger in third with 187 votes and former Councilman William J. O'Neil Jr. out of luck with 176 votes. The local government that watches over the community seemed to be comfortable with that result. But when absentee and provisional ballots were added in and the certified election results showed Mr. O'Neil leaping ahead of Mr. Medinger, 191-190, and Mr. Mavec clinging to his seat with 193 votes, for some reason, squirming began to occur at Village Hall.
When the automatic recount was conducted on Dec. 2, Councilwoman Nancy Heinen, who placed first in the recent election, was among the observers on hand. Having knowledge about who actually lives in the village and who doesn't, she noticed the names of one family with five members who voted in the Hunting Valley election but whose house is not yet "habitable." She saw three other names on the voting list of people whose residences apparently lie outside of the village's municipal boundary.
That caused certain village leaders to surmise that the election was stolen from Mr. Medinger and given to Mr. O'Neil, who apparently was not their favored candidate. After all, Mr. O'Neil violated inner-sanctum decorum three years ago by publicly suggesting that contested mayoral elections could be good for the community.
An outside attorney was hired by Village Council to research the matter of investigating the alleged election impropriety and the village's options for overturning Mr. O'Neil's victory -- although that may not have been the official justification for the tax expenditure.
The attorney, Bruce G. Rinker, echoed the unproven accusation that nonresident voters "presumably altered the outcome of a close vote." But he advised the village that "the tasks of proving election impropriety and fashioning a remedy for it are likely provocative, costly and complex."
One of the complexities Mr. Rinker uncovered is a 1961 state law that could compel a voter to testify to his qualifications and to reveal "for whom he voted," under the threat of perjury. A citizen who believes in the sanctity of the secret ballot, of course, could fall back on Mr. Rinker's reference to the "proverbial Watergate stance, 'I cannot recall at this point in time.'"
If, by chance, fraudulent voters are liars, they could claim to have voted for Mr. Medinger, when, in fact, they voted for Mr. O'Neil -- or vice versa.
[ back ]
