Editorial: The longest election
1
Since November, people in Shutesbury have made their way through an electoral thicket. They've learned how hard it can be to make a decision without dividing a community. Three months in, it isn't over yet.
People on both sides of a question whether to build a new library have been exercising their rights. They should not shy away now.
After years of town debate on the merits of replacing the century-old M.N. Spear Memorial Library, we believe the town can handle a few more weeks of uncertainty in the interests of getting an answer all can accept as fair.
The past week saw a rush of developments. At issue is the result of a Proposition 2½ debt-exclusion override ballot vote Jan. 10 on whether to construct a $3.5 million library. The project would tap a $2.1 million state grant, private donations and - here's the crux - $1.4 million in money raised from taxpayers above the state's tax-limiting law.
Today, the outcome of balloting 18 days ago is again a 522-522 tie. That is a loss for library proponents, who needed a majority. They thought they secured that plurality last Saturday - when a provisional ballot was added to those cast in favor of the new library.
But then came Wednesday night.
On that evening, members of the town's Board of Registrars went one by one through seven contested ballots, a tense process observed by townspeople and attorneys.
The board decided that one of the contested ballots, one in favor of the project, was cast by a former Montague Road resident who is now registered to vote in Kentucky and thus ineligible to participate in Shutesbury's vote.
The seesaw syndrome is testing everyone's patience.
Now, with this town's upheaval closing out a third month, a factor beyond election procedures intrudes. The town has to notify the Board of Library Commissioners by Tuesday whether it will accept the grant - or lose it to another community.
Officials may ask the board next week to grant them a delay in light of all that's gone on. Proponents may challenge the Board of Registrars' decision not to disqualify contested ballots cast by a married couple that lives part of the year in Florida and has voted in that state. The two ballots are known to be votes against the project. If thrown out, the library would be back in the win column.
This past week, a project opponent suggested it is time for supporters to stop pushing and to accept defeat. We believe that is for them to decide. Both sides have taken advantage of their rights under election law.
It is the party on the losing side, not the victor, that decides when to throw in the towel.
If proponents of the library opt to seek further review of the election's procedures and results, and do so in a spirit of civility, so be it. This decision will be long remembered in Shutesbury. The propriety of the Select Board's decision to call a second ballot vote on the library funding, after the first one on Nov. 8 failed 423-382, will be long debated.
Officials had the right under state law to set that second vote. And now, leaders of the half of the electorate that favor the project still have options.
While everyone wants a firm and final result, it can only come, at this point, after all legal avenues in this extraordinary contest have been traveled.
