ST. CROIX — The Virgin Islands Board of Elections on Wednesday upheld the disqualifications of delegate to Congress aspirants Brett “Mac” McClafferty and Ida Smith following a contentious special meeting marked by procedural disputes over evidence, disagreements over the supervisor’s authority, and accusations that some board members acted as advocates rather than impartial officials.
After meeting in executive session to discuss the appeals and question Supervisor of Elections Caroline Fawkes, the board returned to public session and voted 7-2, with one abstention, to uphold McClafferty’s disqualification. Members Cleopatra Peter and Barbara LaRonde voted against the motion, while Kareem Francis abstained.
The board, whose members participated from the Elections System of the Virgin Islands in both districts, later voted 8-0 to affirm Smith’s disqualification.
Board Chair Raymond Williams said no action was taken during the executive session, which he said was limited to allowing board members to question Fawkes regarding the disqualifications before returning to public session for formal action.
The board also approved Francis as vice chair, filling the vacancy created by the resignation of board member Lawrence Boschulte.
McClafferty appeal:
McClafferty, a St. Thomas businessman seeking the delegate to Congress seat, was disqualified after Fawkes concluded his nomination papers were invalid following an Elections System investigation prompted by six complaints from petition signers.
According to Fawkes, several signers reported they were misled about the identity of the candidate or the purpose of the petition, and the office determined that David Greaux — whom the Elections System said was not a registered voter in the St. Croix District — improperly circulated nomination papers in violation of Virgin Islands election law. Fawkes also cited video evidence that she said showed Greaux soliciting signatures rather than Jonathan James, who signed the required circulator affidavit.
McClafferty has denied the allegations, arguing the investigation relied on flawed evidence and contending his campaign lawfully cured deficiencies previously identified by the Elections System. He has accused election officials of attempting to keep him off the ballot and has threatened legal action.
Before Wednesday’s vote, LaRonde objected that the board had not adequately considered correspondence submitted by McClafferty.
Peter also objected, noting the six complaints against McClafferty were not notarized, and some were not signed or dated. She also challenged the ability for the Office of the Supervisor to investigate the claims, stating the VI Code gives the Board of Elections investigative duties.
“Nowhere there gives the supervisor any kind of authority to investigate anybody,” Peter said. “That’s the job of the board.”
The board nevertheless upheld the disqualification after voting to approve a motion offered by Cornelius JnBaptiste.
McClafferty issued a statement following the vote.
“It’s my understanding that members of the Board of Elections ruled against my candidacy on partisan grounds, and completely ignored the law,” he stated. “It is also obvious that should we challenge this disqualification in court, that we’d win. Everybody knows that. The major development since then has been that we’ve reached out to a certain competitive campaign, and would love to have a discussion. This opponent of mine is a remarkable public servant, even if we have disagreements. I’d love to see how these conversations develop, because there’s a belief that there’s more that unites us than divides us; and if those conversations devolve, we’ll simply sue and easily get back on the ballot because the law is clear.”
Smith appeal:
The board devoted considerably more discussion to Smith’s appeal, with members debating whether correspondence submitted by Smith, her family and the Office of the Attorney General should be read into the public record before the vote.
LaRonde sought to have the documents read aloud, but Williams initially ruled the request out of order, noting the board had already discussed the matter in executive session. After further debate, however, Williams allowed LaRonde to read the correspondence after it was pointed out that the meeting agenda called for it.
The first document read into the record was a June 30 declaration from America Hodge Smith requesting that the board investigate and terminate Fawkes over allegations that she unlawfully entered private property while investigating Smith’s claimed residence. The declaration alleged the entry constituted trespassing and stated a police report had been filed. As LaRonde concluded the reading, member Shikima Jones moved to waive the reading of the correspondence, and to have it admitted to the record. Her motion passed by a 7-2 vote. None of the other letters were read into the record.
The board proceeded to consider a motion offered by Franz Christian Jr. to support Fawkes’ decision to disqualify Smith. Peter and LaRonde objected.
Peter said the property identified by Smith has belonged to her family for generations.
“I just want to be able again to let the public know that supervisor’s disqualification of Ida Smith is basically stating that the land that she’s claimed, the property that she’s claiming is on developed piece of land, and this property has been an Ida Smith’s family for 155 years,” Peter said.
Williams cut her off.
“It’s already admitted into the record,” he said.
Williams would not let Peter continue stating her objection.
“We’re trying to move this meeting forward,” he said, calling on LaRonde, board secretary, to administer the roll call.
Peter and LaRonde then gathered their belongings from the boardroom table.
“I’m out,” Peter said as she walked away from the table.
LaRonde left her seat, too. Although Peter and LaRonde gathered their belongings and stepped away from the boardroom table, they remained in the room.
Williams called the roll. The motion to uphold Smith’s disqualification passed, with Peter and LaRonde not responding.
Smith’s disqualification stems from a dispute over the address listed on her nomination papers.
Fawkes requested documentation after determining the St. John property Smith listed as her residence did not appear to contain a residential structure and questioning whether it reflected Smith’s actual place of residence.
On June 3, Smith filed a formal complaint with the board, accusing Fawkes of unlawfully requiring documentation to prove her residence as a candidate. Smith argued the request exceeded the supervisor’s authority and imposed qualifications for delegate to Congress beyond those permitted under federal law.
READ MORE: Ida Smith files complaint with Elections Board over request from Fawkes to prove St. John residency
In a legal opinion issued May 29, Attorney General Gordon Rhea indicated there is no voter registration requirement and no residency requirement in the U.S. Code under Title 48 for independent candidates for delegate beyond that they are inhabitants of the territory on Election Day. However, he noted the Office of the Supervisor of Elections is authorized by statute to require that candidates for delegate disclose their actual, current place of residence.
Rhea advised that while the Elections System may require candidates to disclose their residence, determining whether a listed address is accurate may properly include considering whether the location contains a residential structure, whether the candidate has a legal right to occupy the property, and whether evidence shows the candidate actually lives there.
Board member exchange:
At the end of the meeting, the chair welcomed comments from new board member Lydia Hendricks, who previously served on the board. Hendricks returned to the board as the next eligible candidate to fill the vacancy left following Boschulte’s resignation.
“As I sat here today, I am very discouraged,” Hendricks said. “I am seeing members acting like personal attorneys for these people who we are here trying to see what we could do anything about, and you know who you are, who are acting like personal attorneys for Ida Smith.”
Peter interrupted Hendricks without being recognized by the chair.
“I’m a board member representing the people of the Virgin Islands,” she said. “You’re out of place and you’re out of order.”
Williams attempted to regain control of the meeting.
“Member Peter, member Peter, member Peter stop it,” he said, telling her she was out of place.
Peter responded that he was also out of place.
“Ya’ll are here doing somebody else’s job,” she said. “Just know that the federal government is watching everybody, but we’re here as personal attorneys. No, we’re here as board members. You come at this board for me; just know I’m here for you too.”
The other board members in attendance were Nathan Fletcher and Lilliana Belardo de O’Neal. The absent board members were Chaneel Callwood, Michael Joseph, Harriet Mercer, and Atanya Springette.
