Frias says he's in pursuit of 'the truth` in Dist. 15 race

By John Howell
Posted 11/22/16

By JOHN HOWELL Steven Frias has more state name recognition now than he ever had in his campaign for Representative District 15, the seat held by House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, though it doesn't make him think he should run for the district again nor

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Frias says he's in pursuit of 'the truth` in Dist. 15 race

Posted

Steven Frias has more state name recognition now than he ever had in his campaign for Representative District 15, the seat held by House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, though it doesn’t make him think he should run for the district again nor for statewide office.

And for that matter, he said in an interview last week, he doesn’t see his efforts to get to the bottom of how the Mattiello campaign handled mail ballots as changing the outcome of the election. Going into the count of mail and provisional ballots, Frias was ahead by 147 votes. After the count of those ballots he trailed by 74 votes.

A recount conducted Monday had Mattiello ahead by 85 votes. There is no indication when the election results will be certified. Speaker Mattiello issued a statement saying, “I’m pleased that the Board of Elections recount reaffirms our successful campaign to continue to represent the citizens of District 15 in Cranston.”

If he knows he’s lost, why does he continue to fight? Frias wants to understand how Mattiello could declare victory on election night when he was behind in the machine count and the mail ballots wouldn’t get counted for another two days. Less than an hour after the polls closed, Mattiello told the media and his supporters, all hungry for results, he had “banked” 300 mail ballots and would be reelected.

“The only way he [Mattiello] could be talking about numbers like that is if he knew how they voted,” he said.

State Republican Party chair and Frias’ attorney Brandon Bell filed a request under the access to public records act to view the mail ballots and the envelopes. What he will be looking for are what he thinks are telltale signs people were told how to vote, such as a vote for the president and Mattiello but nothing else. Or a number of ballots where the same people were witnesses, which would suggest the ballots and envelopes where not signed in front of the voter, but returned to some location to be signed en masse.

Bell argues he’s not on a “fishing expedition,” pointing to the account given by Larry Winkler, adding that’s the “scintilla of evidence” that demands investigation and could “go all the way to throwing out the election if there is pervasive evidence of fraud.”

Michael DiChiro, attorney for Mattiello, sees no merit to Bell’s argument. He points out the Mattiello camp saw to it that Winkler’s vote was submitted even though he was known to be a Frias supporter.

Frias’ suspicions were raised before the election when Winkler, who called him to inquire about an emergency ballot, recounted his experience. Winkler was provided a ballot, but not by Frias’ campaign. Winkler reported that a man named “Bob” showed up with a ballot and questioned why he was voting for Frias after he marked the ballot. By law, a voter is not to be influenced when completing a ballot. The ballot is then folded, placed in an envelope and sealed. The voter signs the envelope while being witnessed by two people, who must also sign. If a notary is present they need only sign. Winkler told Frias no one witnessed his signature.

Fearing Winkler’s ballot wouldn’t be submitted, Frias called the Cranston Board of Canvassers. It was submitted and witnesses signed it.

When Providence Journal reporter Katherine Gregg called Frias after the election, he mentioned the incident. She followed up with Winkler, who gave her the same story.

From there, said Frias, “it exploded” and Winkler was besieged by reporters. Frias and Bell sought to halt the count of mail ballots and filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections citing the Winkler case. The board went ahead with the mail ballot count. Last Wednesday it voted to look into Frias’ complaint.

“I never would have filed a complaint if Larry Winkler hadn’t come forth,” Frias said.

He remembers thinking, “I’ve got to do something about this. The worse that is going to happen is that I’m going to lose.”

Also, Frias recalls thinking about the adage, “if you do something wrong, you’re not going to do it once, but you get caught once.”

Frias doesn’t think the Mattiello campaign knew that Winkler had called him to get a mail ballot or that something “nefarious was going on.” Rather, he suspects Mattiello’s people were canvassing the area at about the same time Winkler called and Winkler assumed “Bob” had been sent by Frias. It just happened to coincide.

Now, Frias hopes the Board of Elections will get to the bottom of it, and, if not the board, then the State Police.

Oddly, since he ran for the office, public service doesn’t appear to be at the root of Frias’ campaign. When asked whether he would make another run for elective office now that his name has so much recognition, Frias wasn’t sure. That prompted the question why he ran in the first place.

He said he was unhappy with the speaker. Frias narrows that down to government reform and cutting taxes, both of which he believes Mattiello could do more to address. Frias, who spent about $35,000 on his campaign, looked for one of two goals of the effort: a win would have “turned the State House upside down and would bring change,” to come close to winning would “pressure” Mattiello to make change. He feels he has partially succeeded given Mattiello’s pledge to do away with the car tax over the next five years.

As Frias puts it, he is looking to influence policy on a big level. As for running again, Frias can’t imagine he would have such an impact if he ran for school committee or for city council. Asked about a statewide office, he’s not as emphatic.

He said the race took a lot out of him, not in a financial sense although he put $20,000 into the campaign, but in time with his family. He said his wife said he ran a good race and now he thinks it’s time to move on.

But Frias finds himself in another cause. He said a “line was crossed” when Winkler was questioned on how he voted and his ballot wasn’t properly witnessed. Now, he says, “it’s about the truth and holding people accountable.”

Comments

1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Justanidiot

    The truth?

    You lost.

    Another truth?

    The system is rigged.

    Tuesday, November 22, 2016 Report this