Mattiello win assured in clouded race

Satisfied with State Police investigation, Frias concedes

By Harry Kane
Posted 11/30/16

As of press time Tuesday, the Board of Elections had all but certified Democratic House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello as winner of the highly contentious District 15 election, the results of which have been scrutinized due to public outcry

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
Mattiello win assured in clouded race

Satisfied with State Police investigation, Frias concedes

Posted

As of press time Tuesday, the Board of Elections had all but certified Democratic House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello as winner of the highly contentious District 15 election, the results of which have been scrutinized due to public outcry following alleged claims of voter ballot mail fraud. Earlier Tuesday, Republican contender Steve Frias, who was behind in the ballot count by 85 votes, conceded. 

Accusations by Larry Winkler who voted by emergency ballot cast a shadow of impropriety on the Mattiello campaign. Those allegations were discounted following a State Police investigation that concluded the deposition was “unfounded,” according to Maj. Dennis B. Flemming, Detective Commander.

 "I'm grateful that the State Police concluded the investigation,” said Mattiello. “It's unfortunate that politically motivated allegations were made so freely.  It is time to move on from this negative campaign and as such, I will focus on the needs and concerns of District 15 and the state of Rhode Island."  

No further evidence has been brought to light since the initial accusation, which was reported by The Providence Journal reporter Katherine Gregg and spotlighted by Frias.

 On Tuesday, Frias released a statement to the press explaining his reasons for bowing out.

 “I accept the State Police’s recent decision to close its investigation into the incident involving Mr. Winkler’s mail ballot,” wrote Frias.

Frias, the Republican National Committeeman for RI, stated in an interview with The Cranston Herald that the election was “fishy” and warranted investigation by authorities.

 Following a trail of proverbial breadcrumbs of alleged mail ballot fraud only corroborated by a lone, somewhat subdued whistleblower named Winkler, who has kept a low profile since casting aspersions on the Mattiello camp, and another unconfirmed source via telephone, Frias found himself thrust into a perplexing political brouhaha that essentially turned into a soap opera on steroids. 

On election night Mattiello announced he had won even though he was trailing in the machine vote. 

Frias was at Mayor Allan Fung’s headquarters with the other Republicans when he heard the news, he recalls.

 At the time of the announcement, with the four polling stations reporting, Frias was ahead by 147 votes.

The Frias camp knew, however, a substantial number of mail ballots still were yet to be counted, but instead of conceding following Mattiello’s victory announcement they decided to take a “wait and see” approach.

 “How would he know how he’s doing with mail ballots?” Frias said. “You’d never declare that you won based on mail ballots until they are counted.”

From thereon, Frias stood his ground and refused to concede even after the mail ballots were counted.

 Ballots were eventually recounted as per Frias’ request and Mattiello ended up ahead by 85 votes.

 “All our recounts have been concluded,” said Robert Rapoza, executive director of the Board of elections. “We conducted six recounts. The average recount averaged 3-4 hours.”

 Frias contends that for the last few weeks – ever since election night – that Winkler’s accusation, although now proven “unfounded” by the police, was the linchpin that kept him in the game.

 At the time, Frias was acting on questionable information from at least two people who concur that the Mattiello campaign was in violation of state law, according to Frias, and that was enough to keep the torch burning.

 Initially, Winkler contacted Frias on the Monday before the election and allegedly claimed that the volunteer responsible for delivering the emergency mail ballot was conducting himself improperly and interfering in the voting process. 

“Larry Winkler is an individual who I spoke to on Monday that told me how, when he tried to fill out a mail ballot, a volunteer for the Mattiello campaign named ‘Bob’ interfered with him,” said Frias. 

When “Bob” noticed that Winker had voted for Frias, “Bob” allegedly said, “Why did you do that?” Frias recounted. 

Winkler, apparently upset that “Bob” didn’t notarize or sign the envelope in his presence, worried that his vote wouldn’t be counted and contacted Frias.

“You cannot talk to a voter while they’re casting a mail ballot about who they’re voting for,” explained Frias. “That’s interference. That’s a felony.”

 Winkler’s attorney Mark Fleury says that Winker had been unwell at the time of voting and that is the reason he requested a mail ballot in the first place.

 “He told his version of the events,” Fleury said, revealing that Winkler had been interviewed at his home by State Police. 

Later, an informant – who preferred to remain shrouded in anonymity – told Frias over the phone that the Mattiello campaign was “not properly notarizing and witnessing the mail ballots,” said Frias.

 Under state law, either a notary must be present to witness the signature or two other people need to observe the voter as he or she casts their vote.

 Based on the anonymous tip and statement made by Winkler, Frias submitted an affidavit to the Board of Elections. The affidavit alleged the campaign worker known as “Bob” had violated Rhode Island General Laws and volunteers did not witness signatures, but instead had notaries call the voter to verify from an undisclosed location at a later date.

 While the police investigation concluded that any claims of impropriety were insufficient to substantiate further investigation, a request by Frias’ attorney to obtain access to the mail ballots and envelopes was submitted so as to determine whether there was a group of notaries or witnesses who were signing a large bulk of mail ballots. 

“What I’m expecting to see is a large number of mail ballot envelopes witnessed and notarized by a small group of people,” said Frias. 

Of those 700-mail ballots, Frias says that if a person witnessed more than 50 ballots the Board of Elections should re-launch the investigation.  

Once Frias can obtain access he hopes the envelopes will shed light on the election, which has been enveloped in mystery since he refused to concede on election night. 

“We have mail ballot laws for a reason and that is to protect the integrity and security of the ballot so that it is not tampered with,” said Frias.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here