Referendum on sanctuary law could be postponed

State tables GOP’s appeal about the legality of signatures until next Tuesday


The Democratic majority on the board of canvassers that voted to certify printed names on a petition will not be investigated, the town councilors decided Monday.

The state Board of Elections, however, did not close the book on the matter during a hearing the following night. According to Town Administrator Andy Nota, this could affect the April 2 referendum on whether to adopt an ordinance that would protect illegal immigrants within town limits.

The council vote was along party lines, 3-1, with Republican Councilman Bill Piva dissenting. President Mike White, Vice President Mary Meagher and Councilman Randy White, all Democrats, thwarted the request by North Main Road lawyer Mary Katherine O’Neill. Councilwoman Nancy Beye, an independent, was absent.

O’Neill sent the letter on behalf of Hugh Murphy, the Republican member on the board of canvassers. He voted opposite Democrats Carol Nelson-Lee and Kitty Wineberg at a Nov. 27 meeting to certify 455 names on a petition submitted by Conanicut Sanctuary. That action triggered a public hearing, which led to the referendum.

While the certified names did equal at least 10 percent of the electorate, which is the charter’s requirement to move forward with a referendum, Murphy argued against 35 printed names. In her letter requesting an investigation by the council, O’Neill said the councilors should determine if there was any “misrepresentation, miscalculation or manipulation of the actual number of matched qualified signatures.” She called for them to “immediately investigate irregularities and questionable conduct.”

The town solicitor, Peter Ruggiero, said the charter does give the council investigative powers, but called O’Neill’s letter an opinion rather than a challenge.

“If you start off with a conclusion, there’s no reason to have an investigation,” he said.

Councilman Randy White, a retired prosecutor who reiterated his opposition to the proposed ordinance, agreed with the attorney about O’Neill’s opinion.

“To suggest that the board of canvassers should be investigated because we should universally accept your version of the law, as opposed to mine or anyone else who might disagree with you, is folly,” he said. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

He also said the board acted in “good faith” because the charter provision allowing the petition process was intended “to preserve direct participation.”

“That clearly suggests the intent to open the doors of government for people to come and bring their petitions to us,” he said.

As for the printed names, Ruggiero said there was nothing in the charter or state law that mandates cursive signatures.

“That’s not necessarily what constitutes a signature when it comes to signing as an eligible voter,” Ruggiero said. “It can literally be a symbol.”

At the hearing Tuesday in Providence, the Board of Elections agreed with this opinion.

“In this day and age,” member Richard Pierce said, “we recognize a signature that’s not cursive.”

Led by Mount Hope Avenue’s Blake Dickinson, a former three-term Republican councilman, the state challenge was filed by the local GOP committee. While the board agreed signatures can be printed, member David Sholes questioned the inconsistent petition sheets. Conanicut Sanctuary distributed forms with signature lines and forms without them.

“Who prepared this format?” he asked. “This was not produced by the town?”

Before the discussion broadened, the state’s legal counsel, Raymond Marcaccio, requested an official decision by the local canvassers. While Murphy’s objection was on the Jan. 9 agenda, no motion to approve or reject the measure was taken. Following discussion at that session, Chairwoman Nelson-Lee said she was “not inclined to take any action on this matter at this time.”

Marcaccio, however, said the board’s majority should have rejected Murphy’s challenge with a recorded vote. Keeping the matter technically open, he said, was not advisable.

“I think that’s inappropriate for a local board,” he said. “It’s important to have a record.”

The state board recommended the local canvassers vote on the matter during their meeting Friday. The board tabled the hearing until Tuesday so it can have the local decision on record.

Asked whether the canvassers are required to vote this Friday, Marcaccio said, “Local boards tend to abide by the decisions of this board.”

Because the appeal falls a day after the Feb. 11 deadline to submit a referendum, Nota expects the secretary of state to “err on the side of caution,” which would postpone the referendum. If the Board of Elections votes against the Republicans’ appeal, the referendum could be rescheduled.

According to the charter, if the town council votes against the petitioned measure, “the ordinance as originally proposed by the petitioners shall be submitted to the electors for their approval or rejection, no less than 30 days nor more than one year from the date the town council takes its final vote thereon.”

The councilors rejected the petitioned ordinance during a Dec. 13 public hearing.