DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS

Ian Alexander, Challenger, v. Edward Henry Wolterbeek, Candidate.

Administrative Hearing No. 98-010

Re: Petition Challenge to Edward Henry Wolterbeek, Candidate in the Republican Primary Election Ward 5 Member of the Council

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter came before the Board of Elections and Ethics on Monday, July 27, 1998 and involved a challenge to the candidacy of Edward Henry Wolterbeek, candidate in the Republican Primary Election for Ward 5 Member of the Council. The challenge was brought by Ian Alexander. The Board was represented by Chairman, Benjamin F. Wilson and members Dr. Lenora Cole Alexander and Stephen G. Callas. Challenger, Ian Alexander, appeared pro se. Candidate, Henry Wolterbeek, also appeared pro se.

I. Background. On June 29, 1998, Edward Henry Wolterbeek submitted nominating petitions to appear on the ballot as a candidate in the September 15, 1998 Republican Primary Election for Ward 5 Member of the D.C. Council. That petition was posted for public inspection, as required by law, and challenged initially on July 14, 1998, by Ian Alexander, a registered qualified elector under D.C. Code §1-l312(o)(1). Mr. Alexander also filed an amended challenge on July 17, 1998.

A preliminary review of Mr. Wolterbeek's norninating petitions indicated that he submitted a total of 36 signatures. The minimum requirement for this office is 16 signatures of duly registered Republican voters in Ward 5.

Challenger. Ian Alexander, filed challenges to a total of 22 signatures, enumerated by line and page number on individual "challenge sheets" filed for each petition page. Each signature was challenged on a specific ground or grounds, as required by the Board's regulations.

II. The Contention. Pursuant to D.C. Code §l-1312(o)(1) after the nominating petitions supporting a candidate have been filed with the Board, any registered qualified elector is permitted co file a specific challenge to the validity of those signatures. The Board's disposition of the challenge, therefore, determines whether the candidate's name will appear on the scheduled ballot.

Mr. Alexander challenged inter alia that Mr. Wolterbeek had failed to file the minimum 16 valid signatures of registered Republican Ward 5 voters pursuant to the following provisions of 3 DCMR 1607.5:

b) The signer. according to the Board's records, is not registered to vote at the address listed on the petition at the time the petition was signed;
c) The signer is not a duly registered voter;
d) The signature is not dated;
e) On a petition to nominate a candidate in a primary election, the signer is not registered to vote in the same party as the candidate at the time the petition is signed;
h) The petition does not include the printed or typed name of the signer where the signature is not sufficiently legible for identification;

In addition, Mr. Alexander alleged that six of the signatures on Mr. Wolterbeek's petitions reflected a date subsequent to the date of the circulator's affidavit.

A preliminary review of the challenges conducted by the Registrar of voters indicated that a total of 22 of the 22 challenges were determined to be valid.

In response, Mr. Wolterbeek asserted that two of the challenges should be denied because the error which resulted in one challenge being sustained was harmless and a review of the matter should be conducted in the light most favorable to the candidate. With regard to the second challenge, Mr. Wolterbeek alleged that the date had been misread by both the challenger and the Registrar of Voters.

Specifically, the signature of Don Mastromarco on line 5 of petition sheet 4 and the date adjacent to Ozra Y. Feggans' signature on line 3 of petition sheet 5 were the two subjects of Mr. Wolterbeek's contentions.

Mr. Alexander's challenge to the signature of Dan Mastromarco was filed pursuant to 1607.5(b) and alleged that the voter was not registered at the address of "114 Street, N.W." noted on Mr. Wolterbeek's petition.

In response, Mr. Wolterbeek contended that the voter indeed signed his petition but inadvertently failed to include the letter "S" in his street address of "114 S Street, N.W."

Mr. Alexander's challenged the signature of Ozra Y. Feggans was based upon an allegation that the petition indicated that the signature was appended on June 29, 1998 while the circulators affidavit is dated June 24, 1998 five days prior to the date the voter signed the petition.

In response. Mr. Wolterbeek asserted that the signature in question was appended to his petition on June 19, 1998 and even though it was the first signature he received on that petition sheet, the signer inserted it into the number 3 slot, as opposed to the number 1 slot for superstitious reasons.

III. Analysis. The Board's review of the two specific challenges revealed that Mr. Wolterbeek makes plausible arguments in favor of a discretionary ruling in his favor. After careful review of the signature of and date of Ozra Feggans, the Board determined that the date noted was indeed 6/19/98 and as Mr. Wolterbeek had alleged, had been misread as 6/29/98. Furthermore, Mr. Wolterbeek's affirmative representations under oath during the proceedings tended to reflect favorably on his credibility.

Perhaps more difficult to adjudicate was the challenge to the signature of Dan Mastrornarco. While Mr. Alexander is technically correct in his challenge to the voter's signature, the Board's examination of its records on that voter revealed than with the exception of the letter "S" all the information on Mr. Wolterbeek's petition including the voters signature match the information in the Board's records. Thus, the Board reasonably concluded that the voter demonstrated the requisite intent to assist Mr. Wolterbeek in gaining ballot access by signing his nominating petitions but could have inadvertently left the "S" out of his street address of "114 S Street, N.W."

In concluding than the arguments asserted by Mr. Wolterbeek, are worthy favorable of consideration, the Board is mindful of the fact that the "prime purpose of Congress in formulating the District of Columbia Election law was to keep the franchise open to as as many people as possible." See Collin V. District at Columbia, Board of Elections and Ethics, 359 A.2d 590, 595 (D.C. l976). Therefore, in accordance with established case law, the Board interprets qualifications for candidacy "in an inclusive spirit." See Lawrence v. Board of Elections and Ethics, 6ll A.2d 529 (D.C. App. l992).

IV. Conclusion. In view of the foregoing and information included in the record, it is the Board's determination that Mr. Wolterbeek be credited with the two signatures in question. Thus, the candidate retains a total of 16 signatures, the minimum required for ballot access.

Accordingly, the challenge failed to provide an adequate legal basis to reduce the number of valid signatures obtained by the candidate below the legal minimum requirement.

The Board finds that the challenge is insufficient to remove the candidate's name from the ballot. Therefore, the Board denies the challenge as specified herein.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Order was hand delivered this 30th day of July, 1998 to Ian Alexander, 620 Michigan Avenue, N.E., Washington, DC 20017, and Edward Henry Wolterbeek. 3139 Cherry Road, N.E., Washington, DC 20018.

Kenneth J. McGhie, Esq.