R.I. GOP candidate off the ballot after elections panel rejects signatures • Rhode Island Current

Kenneth Atkinson knew something was up when the Board of Elections called him at work last Friday afternoon.

The very person he was challenging for the District 45 seat in the Rhode Island House of Representatives — Cumberland Democratic Rep. Mia Ackerman — was trying to disqualify signatures on the Republican hopeful’s nomination forms.

A review Monday by the Rhode Island Board of Elections rejected four of Atkinson’s collected signatures. That means he won’t be on the ballot.

“I’m a custodian for crying out loud. I’m running for people like me, people who work in McDonald’s, people with these blue collar jobs, whatever,” Atkinson, who works at a senior center in East Providence, told Rhode Island Current. “She has no opponent.”

The challenge was one of three the elections panel heard Monday, and the only one to result in a candidate’s removal from the ballot. Board members Louis DeSimone, Michael Connors and Diane Mederos were not present at the meeting.

Atkinson was planning to make his first run for office to oust Ackerman from the seat she’s held since 2013, one which covers parts of Cumberland and Lincoln. Just hours before the 4 p.m. signature deadline on June 14, Atkinson stood outside a Cumberland CVS in the rain, and collected a handful of signatures that brought him to a total of 51 — just over the minimum of 50 signatures needed to qualify. 

 Ackerman was not present at the Monday hearing and was instead represented by attorney David Hayes. Ackerman could not be reached for comment Monday evening. According to the Secretary of State’s website, she had 70 verified signatures on her nomination papers. She is unopposed in the Democratic primary and faces no other Republican challenger, joining over 50 of her General Assembly colleagues without opponents this year in both the primary and general elections.

Ackerman challenged 13 signatures collected by Atkinson and the board invalidated three. An additional signature was also nullified after the board found it suspiciously similar to another on the same collection sheet. Atkinson was then left with only 47 validated by the end of the hearing. 

Atkinson said in a phone interview Monday night that he believed the board’s decision to trash just enough of his signatures was indicative of a wider trend in state electoral politics.   

“People like me are constantly turned off,” he said. “And that’s why you have 30-something seats going unopposed right now. Now my opponent…she’s won an election because she got her opponent off the ballot.”

“But if she’s that great of an opponent, she would have just let this let this slide,” Atkinson said. 

Ackerman’s attorney Hayes argued that some of Atkinson’s signatures did not match a voter’s handwriting in town records. Other signees did not appear to have written their full, legal name in the printed name portion of the nomination forms. One signee used “ WM. P” in place of his first name William. Hayes wondered: How could election staff look that person up?

Raymond A. Marcaccio, the board’s legal counsel, replied that a voter is usually first referenced by their last name. After all, local election officials could and did identify the signee and OK’d the signature. Ultimately, the Board of Elections did, too.

State law provides that signatures can’t be invalidated by “the insertion or omission of identifying titles or by the substitution of initials for the first or middle names,” as long as the signature “can be reasonably identified to be the signature of the voter it purports to be.”

While the board ultimately invalidated enough signatures to remove Atkinson from the ballot, it did not entertain all of Hayes’ arguments for a strict interpretation of signature variations.

“I know what my name looks like on my original voter registration from a very long time ago, because I’m involved in this process,” said board member Randall Jackvony. “Most people do not. So I think to expect that they’re going to always match precisely, is putting an incredible burden on the voter.”

Atkinson offered to end review of the remaining signatures, but Marcaccio advised against this in case litigation ever arose, so the board continued to review the contested signatures. 

Two more signature objections found lacking

The Board of Elections heard two other signature-related objections Monday, each of which met something of an anticlimactic end and left challengers’ nomination forms unaffected. 

Democrat Brian Coogan, a former state rep challenging Sen. Valarie Lawson, an East Providence Democrat, for the Senate seat 14, objected to five signatures on Lawson’s nomination forms. 

Coogan said the signatures were collected by a person different from the campaign worker who signed off on the signatures, and added that one witness had supplied an affidavit in support of his contention. 

But at Monday’s meeting, Coogan — who testified that he cut his camping trip early to attend the meeting — was the only party involved who made an appearance. Without Lawson, her campaign workers or the witness present, legal counsel Marcaccio suggested the board let elections staff look into the issue without further action for the moment.

Board member David Sholes agreed with Marcaccio’s recommendation that state election staff prepare a report on the contested signatures. But it wouldn’t affect the outcome of the contes. Lawson turned in 183 validated signatures. Even if the senator lost five signatures, she would still be well over the 100 needed to qualify for the Senate.

“Whatever that report is, it’s going to be independent of the race,” Sholes said. “Both [candidates] qualify…It’s not going to affect your placement on the ballot, either yours or your opponent.”

The third signature challenge involved an objection filed by Rhode Island GOP Chairman Joe Powers against Paul Roselli, the Democrat running against Republican Rep. David Place for the House seat 47, which spans Burrillville and Glocester. 

But there was one problem with Powers’ objection to six of Roselli’s signatures: It needed to be physically signed to be valid. Powers had instead filed the objection electronically, which meant the Board rejected iit, leaving Roselli’s nomination forms and signature counts unaffected.

“We appreciate the fact that you had to wait here…but there is that deficiency with the filing,” said Marcaccio. 

“I live down the street,” Powers said. “I’m good.”