SANFORD — Andrea Boland said she is “98 percent sure” she will ask the Secretary of State’s Office for a recount in Senate District 33 after unofficial counts on primary day showed a 20-vote gap between her and Sen. John Tuttle. Both sought the Democratic nod in the district, which includes Sanford and Waterboro and the smaller, up-county towns of Cornish, Limerick, Newfield, Parsonsfield and Shapleigh.
“The vote was close, and a lot of people are urging me to ask for a recount,” said Boland, Thursday. “It’s the fairest thing to do. There’s no reason not to.”
She said she will make a definitive decision after reading material being forwarded to her by the Secretary of State’s Office.
Tuttle, the incumbent, said he hopes if a recount is in the cards, that it comes soon.
“She’s within her rights,” said Tuttle of Boland. He also pointed out that it is his understanding that the margin of error with new automatic ballot counting machines is low.
In another close race, a write-in candidate for House District 17, David Woodsome, said he’s decided against a recount request after reviewing ballots in Lyman and Waterboro, where 16 votes separated him and Dwayne Prescott, the victor in the Republican primary.
“I’m moving on,” said Woodsome.
As well as running for the state Legislature, Woodsome sought another term June 10 as Waterboro selectman and was unopposed in his bid for re-election to that office.
Deputy Secretary of State for Elections Julie Flynn said candidates have until 5 p.m. Tuesday, June 17 to request recounts. She said those seeking recounts may fax or attach a letter to an email to the office, or mail a letter.
Unofficial results provided to the newspaper by municipal clerks show Boland earned 54 votes in Cornish, 101 in Limerick, 33 in Newfield, 54 in Parsonsfield, 400 in Sanford, 69 in Shapleigh and 110 in Waterboro, for a total of 821. Tuttle, the incumbent, earned 21 votes in Cornish, 82 in Limerick, 24 in Newfield, 22 in Parsonsfield, 520 in Sanford, 63 in Shapleigh and 109 in Waterboro, for a total of 841.
Boland said she’s already learned she has gained one vote in Cornish originally attributed to Tuttle.
Boland is finishing up her fourth term as a state representative in Sanford, where, in addition to focusing on local issues, she said she tends to look for action on matters that others don’t ”“ like her long-time quest for cellphone warning labels. In a June interview, she said she focuses on local issues, like health care, and spoke of legislation she introduced that would require physicians to provide a written estimate of the cost of medical procedures ahead of time, along with other initiatives.
Tuttle has served in the Legislature for almost 30 years. A recent resolution he saw approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor recognizes the environmental hazards present at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown and the resulting potential health risks and disabilities. Maine National Guardsmen trained at Gagetown for many years.
Tuttle fell ill a week before the election and as hospitalized for three days. Initially, he said he’d suffered a minor stroke, but this morning said he is diabetic and it appears his illness had more to do with a low blood sugar level, which triggered other medical factors.
In the District 17 race between Prescott and Woodsome, Prescott earned 27 votes in Lyman and 129 in Waterboro, while Woodsome earned 17 in Lyman and 123 in Waterboro.
Lyman Town Clerk Pauline Weiss said one voter indicated after casting her ballot that she believed she had been given the wrong ballot in error; Lyman is split into two legislative districts. Weiss said she reviewed the ballots and found one that should have been designated for Woodsome.
— Senior Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be contacted at 324-4444 (local call in Sanford) or 282-1535, ext. 327 or twells@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less