Hampshire Gazette

Runoff, Finneran on some ballots
By Mary Carey
October 28, 2002

Voters in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Hampshire House Districts will have more than the statewide questions to ponder on the Nov. 5 ballot.

There are two nonbinding questions on the ballots in those districts.

Question 4 in the 3rd Hampshire District, represented by Ellen Story, D-Amherst, and Question 5 in the 1st Hampshire District, represented by Peter Kocot, D-Northampton, asks voters whether their state representative should be instructed "to vote in favor of legislation or a constitutional amendment establishing instant runoff voting (a voting system that allows voters, in contests with three or more candidates, to rank the candidates in order of preference)."

Question 4 in all communities in the 1st and 2nd Hampshire districts, except Easthampton where it is Question 5, asks voters whether their representative should be instructed "not to vote for Thomas M. Finneran of Boston for speaker of the state House of Representatives." The 2nd Hampshire District is represented by Nancy Flavin, D-Easthampton.

The Finneran question will appear on ballots in 18 House districts statewide.

Besides Northampton, the 1st Hampshire District includes Hatfield, Montgomery, Southampton and Westhampton. The 2nd Hampshire District comprises Easthampton, Hadley and South Hadley, and Amherst and Granby make up the 3rd Hampshire District.

What does a yes vote mean?

A yes vote for instant runoff voting would instruct the district's representative to support legislation in the House or for a constitutional amendment calling for the implementation of the system for statewide races.

A yes vote on the Finneran question would instruct the district's representative not to vote for House Speaker Thomas Finneran. House members usually vote at the beginning of each two-year legislative session for a speaker. There had been a term limit of eight years on the top position since 1985, but representatives voted in 2001 to overturn it.

What does a no vote mean?

If voters reject the instant runoff question, the district's legislator is not instructed to support the electoral reform.

A no vote on the Finneran question means the district's representative is not instructed to vote against him for House speaker.

What happens if the question passes?

Since both questions are nonbinding, there is no immediate effect if either passes. But supporters of both say approval would demonstrate popular support of their goals.

Can the Legislature or governor decide to ignore or delay the impact of the question?

State representatives are not bound to vote the way they are instructed to on either question.

Who are the major supporters?

Citizens for Participation in Political Action and Common Cause support the instant runoff question, which is being promoted by a local chapter of FairVote Massachusetts organized by Amherst lawyer Peter Vickery. Kocot, Story and Michael Aleo, a Green Party candidate for 1st Hampshire District state representative, also have lent their support.

Supporters of the Finneran question include Citizens for Participation in Political Action and Common Cause, as well as local Green Party candidates Aleo and Sue Bartone, who is running for the 2nd Hampshire District seat.

What are the key arguments used by supporters?

Proponents of instant runoff voting say the system would allow voters to "give their votes their marching orders."

Voters specify the order in which they support multiple candidates running for the same office. If no candidate gets more than 50 percent of the votes after a first count, the person with the fewest votes is eliminated. The votes would then be retallied - almost instantaneously with computer technology - with the votes of those who supported the candidate who was eliminated shifting to their second choice and on down, until one candidate emerges with a majority.

Election experts have said in recent news articles on instant runoff voting (archived by the Center for Voting and Democracy at www.fairvote.org), that Al Gore would have won the 2000 presidential elections, if people who voted for Ralph Nader could have listed Gore as their second choice.

Among other charges, proponents of "overthrowing" Finneran say he thwarted the will of the electorate by actively seeking to undermine the Clean Elections law approved by two-thirds of voters in a 1998 ballot question.

Finneran has also been accused of suppressing legislation he opposes by consigning it to committees that are considered legislative "graveyards." Area legislators, including Story, have said that he doesn't allow rank-and-file legislators input into important decisions, including budgetary priorities.

The 1st Hampshire District is a stronghold of anti-Finneran sentiment, following the speaker's unexplained seven-month delay in scheduling a special election to replace former state Rep. William P. Nagle Jr., D-Northampton. Nagle, who had been Finneran's No. 2 man in the House and expected to succeed him one day, left the Legislature in June 2001.

What are the key arguments used by opponents?

There are no organized opponents of either question locally.

Opponents of instant runoff voting in other states, including Alaska, have argued that it is too expensive, complicated and unnecessary.

Supporters of Thomas Finneran and even critics such as Story have praised him for his successful efforts to pass a $1.2 billion package of tax increases to help offset a $2 billion-plus budget deficit.