'Small Talk' created a big disadvantage, Thorp says

Harrison Thorp

AUGUSTA, Maine - The Maine Secretary of State’s chief of Elections and Voting said today that issues brought forth by House 20 candidate Harrison Thorp regarding claims of what he called questionable Election Day tactics could ultimately lead to changes in Election Day law, up to and including even banning candidates from the polling place altogether.

Moreover, inconsistencies in policing of candidate “small talk” was evident during Tuesday’s voting, with Acton election officials banning such banter while Lebanon vote warden Christine Torno allowed it, Thorp said.

“It’s Freedom of Speech,” Torno said today. “However there are fine lines.”

In Acton, Town Clerk Jennifer Roux, who is in charge of Election Day voting, said she allows no “small talk,” because whenever the warden turns their back, the conversation can turn political, which is forbidden.

“They can say their name and thank them for coming out to vote,” Roux said today. “We say no ‘small talk.’ Candidates aren’t supposed to be talking to voters until after they have voted.”

Roux said the no “small talk” rule is enforced whether there are a lot of people waiting to get into the polling place or not.

“We’re treating everyone the same. Why should some get to have ‘small talk’ and not others?”

Thorp indicated to Deputy Secretary of State Julie Flynn that his opponent in Tuesday’s election, Karen Gerrish, along with her mother, former Lebanon tax collector Jane Gerrish, engaged in “small talk” in Acton Tuesday morning and were instructed by the voting warden to cease such activity immediately.

They left moments later and set up shop outside the Lebanon Elementary School where similar activity was allowed.

Flynn said Torno and other Lebanon vote officials were well within their rights to allow the “small talk” as it is not listed in state statutes on Election Day activities, which say:

2. Influence prohibited.  On public property within 250 feet of the entrance to the voting place as well as within the voting place itself, a person may not:

A. Influence another person's decision regarding a candidate or question that is on the ballot for the election that day; or [2005, c. 568, §14 (AMD).]

B. Attempt to influence another person's decision regarding a candidate or question that is on the ballot for the election that day. [2005, c. 568, §14 (AMD).]

Thorp also complained that Jane Gerrish was standing in the receiving line and that by her mentioning her name as Jane Gerrish followed directly by her daughter doing the same created an unfair advantage in any political race in which name recognition is of paramount concern.

However as statute reads now, Flynn said, any number of supporters could stand in line and introduce themselves next to a candidate.

“They just can’t say they’re there in support of the candidate,” Flynn added.

Thorp said that outside Acton Town Hall, when asked if she was a candidate, Jane Gerrish said, “No, my daughter is.”

If that were true it would be a violation of statue and a Class E crime, Flynn added.

Similar issues have come up in the past after a number of elections, Flynn said, adding that, “If things like that are going to rise to such an issue we may see changes in the law. This may be an area where we will see a proposal.”

As far as having supporters in the line outside the polling place, Flynn said you could have as many people as you wanted standing outside.

“But all they can do is state their name, they can’t say they support you,” she said.

Flynn also noted that Election Day policy in the end is enforced by individuals who often interpret the law differently.

She added that despite what Lebanon election practices have always been, it’s perfectly OK to open the door for someone.

Thorp, meanwhile, said he doesn’t intend to file any formal complaint against Jane Gerrish.

Karen Gerrish defeated Thorp 310-207.