Unite New Castle’s Changing Personnel is Confusing, Anti-Democratic
In the election for New Castle Town Board, the “Unite” New Castle slate is posting ads that explicitly tell voters to vote for a candidate – a candidate duly listed on the ballot – who doesn’t plan to serve. UNC assures their voters that “when they win,” Chris Hildenbrand, who’s not a candidate in any accepted use of the word, will “replace” her.
There is no mechanism by which someone who isn’t on the ballot “replaces” someone else after an election. The UNC slate, which is clearly in disarray, with two out of four of their original candidates having dropped out since their original pre-primary announcement, is asking the voters to trust them to appoint a sixth person post-election. In fact, in such a circumstance, there’s nothing to prevent them from pulling yet another name out of thin air and making that their appointment (not so far-fetched given their constantly shifting personnel).
In short, they are explicitly asking voters NOT to write in Hildenbrand – a person not on the ballot – despite that being the only legal way to vote for him. Furthermore, if the UNC candidate who is on the ballot is elected and then drops out, it would be up to the entirety of the newly-seated Town Board to appoint someone to that vacated seat. There is no guarantee that the newly-seated Town Board would, in fact, choose Mr. Hildenbrand.
If one wants a particular candidate, you must either vote for that person, or write them in, which is what was encouraged by UNC during the primary when they also attempted to replace someone on their slate. Remember also that the last time any appointing was done, it was Lauren Levin who was appointed – an actual candidate on a ballot who had received votes.
This shell game is confusing, duplicitous and anti-democratic. I appreciate your time and attention to this circumstance.
Daniel Rigger
Chappaqua
Examiner Media – Keeping you informed with professionally-reported local news, features, and sports coverage.
