Last July Several longtime Cape
Vincent residents who are proponents of BP’s wind farm development in our
community initiated a lawsuit against me for defamation of character.
The suit was brought by Gary J. King
Marty T. Mason, Donald J. Mason, Harvey J. White, Paul C. Mason, Darrell and
Marlene Burton and Frank J. Giaquinto, who contended that I damaged their
reputations by publishing false information about them.
The two Mr. Masons claimed that
statements I published cost them seats on the Town Council in the November 2011
election.
We are headed into another election season and it is vital that the residents
of Cape Vincent understand how important this upcoming election is.
The Plaintiffs submitted a memorandum
in opposition to my motion to dismiss.
This document outlines how the
plaintiffs and their organization the Citizens for Fair Government (CFG)
organized to prevent certain people in Cape Vincent from voting.
Plaintiffs ~ STATEMENT OF
FACTS
A. Citizens For Fair government
Works To Stop Voter ~fraud.
Defendant's self-serving attempt to recast
the issues in this case fails.
Plaintiffs are members and/or supporters of a
local organization called Citizens for Fair Government ("CFG")
CFG's
objective is to ensure that the rights of the citizens of Cape Vincent are
protected.
To
that end, CFG has undertaken numerous measures to safeguard the civil liberties
and interests of year-round residents of the Town of Cape Vincent, as it is
these very residents that realize the daily impact of the Town's elected officials,
adopted laws and ordinances, and the administration of local government.
CFG does not limit the issues to which it
takes an interest. However, the primary concern of CFG is to curtail suspected
voter fraud in the Town of Cape Vincent.
Issues regarding voter registration have been
a particular concern because seasonal residents have attempted to change where
they are registered to vote in an effort to influence local elections.
These efforts allow seasonal residents to
realize an immediate benefit and strip year-round Cape Vincent residents of
their own municipal privileges.
For instance, CFG has a significant interest
in the New York School Tax Relief Program ("STAR"). STAR provides
homeowners partial exemptions from school property taxes.
In order to qualify for
an exemption, an individual must own a home and it must be that person's
primary residence.
A
local assessor determines primary residence by, among other things, voting
registration and the length of time spent each year on the property.
CFG
was concerned that part-time residents in Cape Vincent were registering to vote
in the Town in an effort to qualify their seasonal property for partial
exemption under the STAR program.
Clearly, obtaining this partial exemption would divest the local
school district of needed funds, thereby causing a negative impact on
year-round residents with substantial interests in the school district and
causing a windfall for the seasonal resident.
CFG is not the only entity that
recognized the impact of seasonal residents changing their voter registration
on real property ~ exemptions.
In or around October 2011, an unsigned notice
was sent to various city assessors notifying each that a resident of their city
had recently registered to vote in Cape Vincent.
The assessor for the City of Canandaigua, New
York, Mark Brown, responded to the notice by contacting the resident in question
and inquiring where that resident considered his primary residence to be.
The resident, after stating that all of his vehicles
were registered in Canandaigua and that he filed income taxes in Canandaigua,
admitted that he considered The Canandaigua to be his primary residence.
Nevertheless, the resident still acknowledged
that he registered to vote in Cape Vincent. Mr. Brown, in response to this
confession, "suggested that he had just admitted to voter fraud as It was
not a Cape Vincent resident for thirty days prior to the election."
Clearly, Plaintiffs' suspicions that voter fraud was pervasive in Cape Vincent
were not unfounded.
B. The Resolution Is Supported By Cape
Vincent Residents.
In or around the summer of 2011, Plaintiffs,
as well as several other people, gathered in support of certain public
officials.
At this gathering, citizens began voicing
their concerns over what many believed to be illegal voting practices in the
Town of Cape Vincent.
In response to these concerns, several
members of the gathering formulated a measure to drastically reduce or
eliminate these perceived illegal voting practices.
The proposed
measure would require any voter in a Town election to present a New York State
ID with a Cape Vincent address.
The
measure formed the basis for a petition that was circulated and ultimately
resulted in the August 11, 2011 Resolution (the "Resolution").
Notably, a commissioner of the Jefferson
County Board of Elections was present at the gathering at which the measure was
discussed.
Although he was unquestionably aware of the
basic tenets of the proposed measure, the commissioner expressed little concern
over it and, in fact, stated that the only possible negative outcome was that
it could be challenged in court.
Thereafter,
in or around early August 2011, the petition was prepared and circulated in the
Town of Cape Vincent. The petition, signed by over two hundred (200} citizens,
requested that the Town Board take action to resolve illegal and unethical voting
methods being carried out in Town elections.
Specifically,
the signatories of the petition were concerned that individuals that owned
property in the Town, but rarely lived on that very property, were changing
their voter registration in an effort to vote in the Town, materially affect the
outcome of elections, and substantially damage Plaintiffs' and other year-round
citizens'
interests.
The
petition, therefore, requested that the Town Board implement a procedure where by
voters would be required to present a New York State driver's license with a
Cape Vincent address in order to vote.
The petition was presented to the Town Board and
subsequently adopted as the Resolution.
Two members of the Town Board did not believe
the Resolution to be lawful. As such, the Town Board solicited a letter from
the Town Attorney for an opinion regarding the Resolution.
The
Town Attorney merely opined That, in his view, "the resolution...is
ineffective."
The Town Attorney recognized that a prospective
voters must be a resident of the jurisdiction for thirty days and residency is
largely a question of intent. Plaintiffs shared these concerns.
Indeed, Plaintiffs had already received confirmation
that these very practices had been occurring in an effort to influence local
elections.
Plaintiffs merely wanted to do something to
limit illegal and/or unethical voting in Cape Vincent. Rather than delve
further into the issue and involve the Board of Elections, the Town Board
hastily reconvened and rescinded the resolution.Continue reading
