Progress 4 Peekskill Petition Failures Yield Fuzzy GOP Math

GOP seems to fudge a significant number

On 7 Oct the official website of Peekskill’s Grand Old Party www.peekskillgop.com posted a statement re the “Progress 4 Peekskill” petition disqualification.  It reads in part, “… a grass roots petition drive to acquire an independent line in the upcoming Peekskill election has been negated as the County Board of Elections has determined that the valid number of signatures fell about 30 names short of what was required.”

The Progress 4 Peekskill petition drive did fail, but not by “about 30 votes.”  The day before the GOP posted their statement, the Westchester County Board of Elections sent out the following information, signed by both the Dem and GOP Deputy Commissioners: “The petition as filed contained 293 signatures.  This board sustained 118 objections leaving a total of 175 valid signatures.  Inasmuch as 264 signatures are required the petition is ruled invalid.”  Among the flaws were signatures from persons who were "not registered, not registered from address given, residence not in political subdivision, unidentifiable by name/address, duplicate signature same petition, previously signed another petition, witnessed own signature, witness not registered."

Lay aside all of the technicalities of New York's famously complicated election laws.  Let's just help the Peekskill Republicans with their arithmetic.  The number of valid signatures fell 89 short of the minimum required. Math was never my strong suit, but I’m thinking “about 30” is not a valid approximation of 89.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Jim Knight October 15, 2011 at 06:52 PM
I’ve posted the letter I quoted. It’s from the Board of Elections, dated 6 Oct 2011.You can get your own copy from the board as it is public record. I’m not, and have never been, a spokesperson for any political party. I resigned from the City Democratic Committee in 2007 (see profile). It’s no scandal that I’m on the Patch. Neither is it a scandal that Vinnie Vesce is on the Patch. Mr. Vesce, by the way, is listed as “contact person” on recent Peekskill GOP press releases. I think that makes him a GOP “spokesperson.”
Katie Schmidt Feder October 16, 2011 at 03:14 AM
The only disservice the Patch does to the City of Peekskill is to allow people to post without using their real names. If John Q. was willing to stop hiding behind a pseudonym, the Patch would probably welcome him(or her) to write a blog or contribute to the Local Voices column.
John Q. Public October 16, 2011 at 04:16 AM
Jim I don't see what your point is. A grassroots effort in Peekskill collected signatures to oppose the current administration who spends $5 million more a year than the City did before Foster took office. I thought loyal democrats believed in the idealism of fighting the wasteful establishment. You are a plant, a shill, enabling Foster's failure.
jo October 17, 2011 at 11:41 AM
what really bothers me with Foster.. was her resurrectin of a dead budget.. a previous budget she took upon her self to "give life" and issue a tax hike.. disgusting.. smacks of back room cronyism... dump the dems.. .. all of them
Jill Maynard October 17, 2011 at 01:00 PM
Come on, "John Q. Public." You don't speak for the public, you speak for yourself. Use your name.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »