Former city councillor is not a Cambridge voter, commission finds, and neighbors get next look
Sam Seidel awaits the verdict Wednesday in an Election Commission hearing about where he votes. (Photo: Marc Levy)
With reluctance, the Election Commission removed a former two-term city councillor from Cambridge’s voting rolls Wednesday and prepared to do the same for others in his situation: living on the Somerville city line with parts of a home’s property in each city.
The question of whether Sam Seidel would stay a Cambridge voter has been before the commission since Feb. 15. Board members’ need for more information and legal advice – and an evident reluctance to deal with the fallout – delayed a decision; Seidel and Heather Hoffman, an attorney presenting the case against Seidel voting in Cambridge, also each asked for delays for personal reasons.
Presenting the legal advice asked by the board was Elliott Veloso, first assistant city solicitor with the Law Department. He made it clear that there were no especially complicated questions of law in deciding a voter’s domicile; the defining case was in 1839.
“In instances where a boundary line divides a property, ’domicile’ is determined first on which side of the boundary a person sleeps, where they lay their head,” Veloso said. “Only if you can’t make that determination based on the boundary line, you would then move to other considerations.”
In Seidel’s case on Harris Street, though some of his property is in Cambridge, his house is not – so where he lays his head is in Somerville, which is also where his tax bills go, though he gets many services from Cambridge.
Commissioners Ethridge King and Larry Ward threw out as many questions and cautions as they could, delaying a vote into a 50-minute hearing. Fellow member Victoria Harris recusing herself from the hearing because she’s worked with Seidel left chair Charles Marquardt as the third vote – yet Ward asked Veloso what would happen if there was no majority, raising the possibility that he or King might abstain and force the hearings to continue into at least a fourth session.
“This matter is decided”
Ultimately neither abstained, and the vote was unanimous: Seidel was incorrectly registered in Cambridge and would be removed from the city’s voting rolls. The commission would help him get registered in Somerville.
“Sorry, Sam,” Marquardt said. “This whole thing bites. I wish it never happened. This is not fun.”
The law was clear, Marquardt said, and staff and other commissioners echoed the sentiment. Ward said he was “heartbroken,” considering Seidel’s engagement in Cambridge life, including a 2007-2011 stint on the City Council.
Immediately after the hearing, Seidel declined to comment beyond thanking the commissioners for their deliberation and commitment. “This matter is decided, and I think it’s time to move on,” Seidel said.
Harris returned for discussion of how Seidel’s neighbors would next be confirmed for voter registration in the correct city.
Bigger look at Harris Street
There are as many as 22 people on Harris Street who could be in a similar situation, and King and Ward said they were reluctant to overturn the lives of people who thought they bought homes in Cambridge, were allowed to vote in Cambridge elections and have been active in civic life in Cambridge, like Seidel. The reason his case came to the commission is that he signed a zoning petition to get it before the Planning Board, and resident Charles Teague suspected Seidel didn’t have the right. Hoffman represented Teague in the hearings.
A memorandum submitted by a Craig Kelley, an attorney and former colleague of Seidel’s on the council, suspected Teague’s motives were to “make people think not just twice but three, four or even five times before signing a petition, submitting a letter or showing up to comment” for fear of blowback. King and Ward took the warning to heart when thinking about removing more people from Cambridge rolls because the law considered them Somerville voters.
“Voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement, those buzzwords will get thrown around,” King said. “This will piss people off.”
“There’s going to be lawsuits,” Ward said.
There were less likely to be legal challenges if state law was followed dispassionately and equitably – including a lawsuit from Seidel, who now shouldn’t be the only Harris Street resident examined under the state standard, argued executive director Tanya Ford and Lesley Waxman, assistant director. The bigger danger, Harris said, is that there’s a close election and voters call it invalid because of city-line voters. The city of Brockton faced such a problem in the 1980s, she said.
Required to investigate
If the commissioners knew of potential problems on Harris Street, it was impossible to ignore them, King and Ward were told.
And in defending himself, Seidel noted how many people on his street were in the same situation. A Department of Public Works map backed him up. Though King and Ward fought it desperately – latching onto Veloso’s recitation of a law that upon probable cause the commission “may prepare a complaint” rather than “shall” – they were out-reasoned by Marquardt, Harris, Ford and Waxman.
“If you follow the letter of the law, nobody can be accusing you of [abusing your] discretion. If you don’t follow up now that we know, you’re opening yourself up to accusations,” Waxman said.
Staff said they would do more research into the Harris Street homes – including one structure where there’s one Cambridge voter and one Somerville voter – and set up a process to notify residents. “They probably already know that it’s coming,” Ford said, “because word spreads.”
I have a question for all the people who are so morally offended by how Mr. Teague accidentally found out that Mr. Seidel was registered to vote in Cambridge, even though Mr. Teague thought he had moved to Somerville; asked me, as a title examiner, to check the real estate records to see if he was right; and then filed a thoroughly documented complaint with the Election Commission. What circumstances would satisfy you morally for someone to challenge someone else’s right to vote in Cambridge?
Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Teague were within their rights to challenge Mr. Seidel’s residency status. His property is in both towns. However, there is no clear statutory law that governs this issue and, based on the specific facts of this specific case, the Election Commission would have been well within its rights to find Mr. Seidel a valid Cambridge voter. I wish they had. Sam was doing nothing shady when he signed that zoning petition (which ultimately passed 6-3) and he never has. He bought his property believing in good faith he would be able to vote in Cambridge. I know that because I asked him that very question at the time.
Mr. Teague and Ms. Hoffman have opened up a horrible can of worms for a lot of people who, like Mr. Seidel, had every reason to believe they were legitimate Cambridge residents and Cambridge voters when they bought their homes. How this challenge makes the world a better place is beyond me.
That said, an important part of this story is what happens when a Cambridge real estate attorney and a Cambridge developer team up to drive an active citizen, someone any City would be proud to have amongst its citizenry off the voter rolls. What does this do the next person who maybe wants to object to a development proposal but worries that maybe some skeleton they’d rather keep private will be found in their closet? Will citizens decide to be quiet for fear of arousing the ire of self-appointed activists on the lookout for dissenting voices? I worry that the political poison we see suppressing the vote and silencing public dialogue in other parts of America may yet find fertile soil here.
As to Sam. Absent a successful appeal, he’ll become a Somerville resident and Somerville voter. That is Somerville’s gain and Cambridge’s loss. But, on a larger scale, the Election Commission’s decision was everybody’s loss.
hmmm… follow the facts. the law is there to protect people and we need people to protect laws.
As a lawyer, I am sure that Mr. Kelley understands the role that case law plays in our legal system. He just didn’t like the case that has set the standard for determining domicile in Massachusetts since 1839. The rest of his accusations are beneath contempt and unworthy of him.
Maybe they can get rid of counciler QZ..