City Will Fill Walsh Seat In Vote Recount Today

A month after City Councillor William H. Walsh was removed from office following his federal sentencing, his successor will be decided today by the Cambridge Board of Election Commissioners.

The recount was scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. today, following two unsuccessful attempts by James J. McSweeney--who came in 10th in last November's race for the nine-member council--to have the city's complex proportional representation voting system declared invalid.

If the recount takes place today, McSweeney is expected to lose to Anthony D. Galluccio, who came in 12th in the election but is expected to receive more votes after the votes from Walsh and other defeated candidates are transferred.

Walsh was convicted last month on 41 federal charges of bank fraud, conspiracy and making false statements, and was removed from office as required by Massachusetts law.

Middlesex County Appeals Court Judge Rudolph Kass yesterday denied McSweency's motion to extend a restraining order blocking the election board from recounting the paper ballots.

But McSweeney said last night that he plans to appeal Judge Kass' decision today to the Supreme Judi- cial Court (SJC), the state's highest court.

Under proportional representation--a voting system unique to Cambridge--candidates for the nine City Council and six School Committee positions must reach a certain quota of votes to win a seat.

Voters mark up to nine candidates--in order of preference--on their paper ballots. Ballots are essentially resdistributed in a series of recounts, as candidates with the fewest votes are gradually defeated and the runners-up on those ballots receive the vote from the defeated candidate.

"Cambridge is the only city in the country that uses proportional representation for both city council and school committee [seats]," said Teresa S. Neighbor, the election board's executive director.

A seat vacancy results in a recount of the ballots from the candidate leaving office. This last happened in 1985, when Mayor Leonard Russell died in office.

At one point in last year's election count, McSweeney trailed Walsh by only 47 votes. But after the final transfer of votes, Walsh had 2182 ballots, McSweeney 1861 and Galluccio 1262, according to Neighbor.

Walsh's 2182 ballots will be transferred tomorrow to the runners-up.

Court Challenge

McSweeney had obtained a restraining order November 18 from Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Wendie I. Gershengorn blocking the recount.

But last Thursday, Gershengorn issued a ruling upholding the proportional representation system. She denied McSweeney's claims that the procedure violated the state's constitution, and that a 1972 state law had nullified proportional representation.

"The procedure used by the city of Cambridge to fill the vacancy on the city council is constitutional," Gershengorn wrote in her 11-page ruling. "This court finds that the procedure...does not substantially impact the voters of Cambridge."

Gershengorn agreed with the principle behind the procedure for replacing a candidate--that only his or her ballots, not all that ballots, should be recounted.

"This procedure utilizes the next preference on the ballots which were originally credited to Walsh," the judge added. "Effectively, then, the Walsh voters determine Walsh's successor."

A Unique System

McSweeney, who said his attorneys will file an appeal with the SJC this morning, thinks proportional representation results in some voters being ignored.

"The unfairness is there's 2200 people whose votes aren't being counted," said McSweeney, an employee-benefits specialist who has run for the council twice. Dennis Newman, McSweeney's attorney, said 2246 votes cast for him had been placed in the pile of "exhausted votes," rendering them ineligible for tomorrow's recount.

McSweeney disagreed with the Appeals Court ruling.

"They felt was that it wasn't unconstitutional," he said in an interview last night. "They didn't feel that the recount system alienated or intended to hurt anybody. Our argument is that everyone's vote should count."

"The main problem is you don't know who you're voting for," he added. "People in this particular case, if they voted for me, their vote doesn't count."

But Galluccio said that he sees the issue differently.

The expected winner said the spirit behind the recount rules ensures that the candidate closest to Walsh in views will get to replace him.

"The recount procedure assures that Bill Walsh's voters will elect a replacement," said Galluccio, a legislative aide to state Sen. Robert Wetmore (D-Barre).

"I'm not a big fan of [proportional representation], but what it does guarantee is that small pockets of voters with specific political philosophy--minorities--can elect a candidate," he said in an interview last night. "Only those votes which are cast for the elected councillor go to electing a replacement, and that assures that that replacement will be compatible."

Galluccio noted that proportional representation has been used in Cambridge elections since 1941.

"The fact of the matter is, you don't change the rules at half-time," said Galluccio, a Suffolk Law School night student.

Galluccio blamed McSweeney for using legal tactics to delay the replacement for Walsh's seat.

"Walsh's voters had no representation during a very crucial time," he said.

In the weeks following Walsh's removal, the city council voted on its home-rule petition to the state legislature, which sought to delay the abolition of rent control originally scheduled for January 1.

Neighbor said the results of the recount will be announced tonight, but McSweeney said he would try to obtain an SJC injunction delaying the recount until the court rules on the constitutionality question.

"We're neutral as far as our commitment to following the statute," said Neighbor, speaking for the four-member board

Under proportional representation--a voting system unique to Cambridge--candidates for the nine City Council and six School Committee positions must reach a certain quota of votes to win a seat.

Voters mark up to nine candidates--in order of preference--on their paper ballots. Ballots are essentially resdistributed in a series of recounts, as candidates with the fewest votes are gradually defeated and the runners-up on those ballots receive the vote from the defeated candidate.

"Cambridge is the only city in the country that uses proportional representation for both city council and school committee [seats]," said Teresa S. Neighbor, the election board's executive director.

A seat vacancy results in a recount of the ballots from the candidate leaving office. This last happened in 1985, when Mayor Leonard Russell died in office.

At one point in last year's election count, McSweeney trailed Walsh by only 47 votes. But after the final transfer of votes, Walsh had 2182 ballots, McSweeney 1861 and Galluccio 1262, according to Neighbor.

Walsh's 2182 ballots will be transferred tomorrow to the runners-up.

Court Challenge

McSweeney had obtained a restraining order November 18 from Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Wendie I. Gershengorn blocking the recount.

But last Thursday, Gershengorn issued a ruling upholding the proportional representation system. She denied McSweeney's claims that the procedure violated the state's constitution, and that a 1972 state law had nullified proportional representation.

"The procedure used by the city of Cambridge to fill the vacancy on the city council is constitutional," Gershengorn wrote in her 11-page ruling. "This court finds that the procedure...does not substantially impact the voters of Cambridge."

Gershengorn agreed with the principle behind the procedure for replacing a candidate--that only his or her ballots, not all that ballots, should be recounted.

"This procedure utilizes the next preference on the ballots which were originally credited to Walsh," the judge added. "Effectively, then, the Walsh voters determine Walsh's successor."

A Unique System

McSweeney, who said his attorneys will file an appeal with the SJC this morning, thinks proportional representation results in some voters being ignored.

"The unfairness is there's 2200 people whose votes aren't being counted," said McSweeney, an employee-benefits specialist who has run for the council twice. Dennis Newman, McSweeney's attorney, said 2246 votes cast for him had been placed in the pile of "exhausted votes," rendering them ineligible for tomorrow's recount.

McSweeney disagreed with the Appeals Court ruling.

"They felt was that it wasn't unconstitutional," he said in an interview last night. "They didn't feel that the recount system alienated or intended to hurt anybody. Our argument is that everyone's vote should count."

"The main problem is you don't know who you're voting for," he added. "People in this particular case, if they voted for me, their vote doesn't count."

But Galluccio said that he sees the issue differently.

The expected winner said the spirit behind the recount rules ensures that the candidate closest to Walsh in views will get to replace him.

"The recount procedure assures that Bill Walsh's voters will elect a replacement," said Galluccio, a legislative aide to state Sen. Robert Wetmore (D-Barre).

"I'm not a big fan of [proportional representation], but what it does guarantee is that small pockets of voters with specific political philosophy--minorities--can elect a candidate," he said in an interview last night. "Only those votes which are cast for the elected councillor go to electing a replacement, and that assures that that replacement will be compatible."

Galluccio noted that proportional representation has been used in Cambridge elections since 1941.

"The fact of the matter is, you don't change the rules at half-time," said Galluccio, a Suffolk Law School night student.

Galluccio blamed McSweeney for using legal tactics to delay the replacement for Walsh's seat.

"Walsh's voters had no representation during a very crucial time," he said.

In the weeks following Walsh's removal, the city council voted on its home-rule petition to the state legislature, which sought to delay the abolition of rent control originally scheduled for January 1.

Neighbor said the results of the recount will be announced tonight, but McSweeney said he would try to obtain an SJC injunction delaying the recount until the court rules on the constitutionality question.

"We're neutral as far as our commitment to following the statute," said Neighbor, speaking for the four-member board