The matter of 14 votes for Troy Parker, a write-in candidate for last June’s Arundel selecmen race, has become a word game.
   The votes were not counted in Parker’s favor because the voters failed to follow the directions on the ballot, making it unclear for whom they were voting.
   Some of the voters wrote only Troy’s first name or last name on the ballot and they did not mark the indicator box, an act that would have finalized the vote.
   Even if they had marked the box, it still would have been debatable if those who wrote “Troy” meant “Troy Parker” and those who wrote in “Parker” meant “Troy Parker”
   Had the ballots been properly filled out and counted, they may have affected the outcome of the election.
   Now the issue of the intent of 14 voters is being heard in a court setting.
   According to the Maine Revised Statues 21-A which outlines how votes must be marked on a ballot, the statute clearly states, “If a voter writes in a name and municipality of residence, or pastes a sticker containing the candidate’s name and municipality of residence in the write-in space pursuant to section 691, but does not mark the write-in indicator, that vote for that office may not be counted.”
   So now we know if the indicator box is not marked, the vote is invalid … or is it?
   The words “may not” throws a monkey wrench in the whole thing.
   Does “may not” mean the votes may or may not be counted? It sounds as if it’s at the discretion of someone.
   If you asked me, “Are you still going to the store later?” and I answered, “I may not,” you would probably interpret it to mean it’s possible I am going to the store – or not.
   However, “may” is also used as an obligatory word, denoting a definitive answer.
    If my child asked, “May I go to the party with Bob?” and I answered, “You may not,” the answer in this case is a definite “no.”
   The attorneys involved in the ballot case argue that the statute was written and geared toward municipalities that use optical scanning machines to count ballots. In this case, “may not” would be interpreted to mean it’s possible the machine might not recognize ballots, which are improperly marked.
   Elsewhere in the Maine Revised Statutes 21-A, a paragraph is dedicated to the use of the words “may not” – “When used in this Title, the term ‘may not’ indicates a lack of authority or permission to act or refrain from acting in the manner specified by the context, whereas the term ‘shall not’ indicates a duty to refraim (sic) from action or omission in the manner specified by the context.”
   I’m glad I’m not the judge in this case. Everyone loses. Some have lost already. The voters who meant to vote for Troy Parker did not get their man in office. They lost. Troy Parker lost an election. If the court finds in Parker’s favor now, incumbent David Lane loses the seat he has held for seven months.
   The bottom line is, it’s the fault of the voters who did not read and follow the instructions on the ballot. Instructions are designed to prevent problems like this.
   Next time you go to the polls and intend to write-in a candidate, make sure you write their first name, last name and mark the indicator box or follow whatever directions are posted. – Renee Worthing