Published 5/16/2023
Throughout my fourteen years as Greenburgh Town Clerk, I’ve enjoyed, mostly, the opportunity to expand civic engagement and increase community involvement. I have engaged the town in partnerships with organizations to bring awareness to the public related to numerous issues such as strategies for becoming involved in local government, mental health awareness, sex trafficking of women and children, clothing and necessities for disaster victims… and much more. I created an internship program for our youth, now in its 15th summer, bringing a multi-cultural representation of high school and college students together from the entire town to learn about local government. I have responded to countless requests for assistance by residents seeking answers regarding local government matters. No one can say that I have not been responsive to “the entire community.” I have also upgraded technology, several times, in the Clerk’s office and created a more customer-friendly approach to serving the public.
In 2007, I came into the position of Greenburgh Town Clerk knowing very little about the local political “scene and machine.” I ran against someone who has, over the past fourteen years, relentlessly attempted to orchestrate a campaign against me. She has even approached women in Town Hall, my colleagues, asking them “Would you be willing to run against Judith?” What I have also learned, since, is that the leadership of this local “political machine,” so to speak, does not depart, very far, from the thinking that established and maintained the foundation of racism and of plantation politics with respect to how they expect African Americans who become elected officials to “behave.” During the nearly four hundred years of “chattel slavery” in this country, anyone who was considered “troublesome” would be physically abused, brutally tortured, beaten to death or “sold down the river.” Well, in these modern times, the “backlash” or “payback” is an organized and orchestrated attempt to smear the person’s reputation, discredit his/her contributions as an elected official and attempt to assassinate the person’s character and/or block their opportunity to run for re-election “by any means necessary.” These efforts include complicity among folks who represent my culture, as well. Often, this complicity provides the fuel to launch such efforts.
This is my year for re-election and I have a challenger who is supported by the “2007 person” as well as the local “political machine.” Apparently, “the machine,” including Greenburgh council members, orchestrated a “challenge” to the over 2,000 signatures that my “running mates” and I submitted in order to have a fair opportunity to run during the upcoming Democratic Primary, June 27th. We endured wintery and, sometimes blustery cold days, damp and wet days, sunny and cold days, early mornings at train stations, collecting signatures door-to-door, attending events, standing at grocery stores for countless hours to obtain twice the number of signatures that were required. I have campaigned several times and know, well, not to defraud the process. I have even campaigned with our thirty-two year Town Supervisor and Eric Zinger, with whom I secured signatures to help each other get on the ballot in 2019. Both trusted my judgement with respect to acquiring signatures and handling petitions.
My running mates were accused of “election fraud.” One made a mistake by signing a petition that he didn’t witness and the other was literally “set up.” The “Set Up:” A resident, admitting via an affidavit and sworn testimony in court, to be a “friend” of my opponent, claimed that he signed her petition and printed his name, along with his address on two petitions carried by my running mates, but denied that his signature on a third petition of one of my running mate’s was his handwriting, even though the writing of the address in all three petitions is exactly the same. The allegation was that his signature on my running mate’s petition was forged. Common sense question: How and why would my running mate just pull this person’s name out of all 767 signatures that he obtained and forge this person’s signature on his petition? How is it that the address, alongside the alleged forged signature is the same as the manner in which the address was printed all three times? Logical response: The “set up” forgot to change the manner in which he wrote his address because it matched the address as written in all three petitions that he signed associated with our overall “Petition.” Obviously, this was contrived and, therefore, “a fraud,” but not a ‘fraud” committed by my running mate.
During the court hearing, other issues (technicalities) were pointed out with signatures that justified removing the signature, however, there was no evidence of fraud throughout the petition. The judge admitted that she had never done a “line-by-line” signature challenge before. While she “sustained” most of the objections to the signatures we had acquired, she did “overrule” many of their objections thereby returning several back to us. However, after spending a few hours over the course of two days going “line-by-line” to challenge our signatures, a deal was made with the lawyer representing the “petitioners,” who were my opponent and the two endorsed candidates for town council. In the deal, she agreed to only “consider the nine (9) signatures that were on the petition that the first running mate signed for and the one (1) signature challenged by the “friend” of my opponent. There were 1,018 signatures that were not “challenged.” This number would have met the required amount for “getting on the ballot.” However, their attorney asked her to consider the entire petition of 2,167 signatures “permeated with fraud.” In her decision, the next day, she did just that – rendering the entire petition to be fraudulent and, thus, disenfranchising the 1,018, plus more, voters. She also stated I, along with another running mate, was “chargeable” indicating that we must have known about the petition that was left on the drugstore countertop. We both took an oath, swearing to tell the truth on the stand of a NYS Supreme Court hearing and stated that we/I knew nothing about that petition being left at the drugstore by the other running mate. However, the judge insisted that we, somehow, must have known. But there’s no law requiring her to show evidence. There is no evidence; we did not know about the petition that was left at the drugstore. I felt like one of the hundreds of thousands of African Americans who have, throughout history, been falsely accused and continue to be accused of and harshly sentenced for a crime that they did not commit. I testified that I was not aware of the petition at the drugstore and I maintain that to be the God’s honest truth. According to our attorney, “We found both of you to be totally credible and however unfair her decision may be, the law allows the judge the right to make a credibility ruling; it’s difficult to get such rulings overturned at the appellate court level.” Apparently, such rulings have cost many innocent people long sentences as well as their life. No change in this line of thinking and legalized action over the past 400 years, either.
The challenge to our petition of over 2,000 signatures from residents throughout this town denies the opportunity for an honest competition and voter choice in the upcoming primary. It represents a dictatorship. It also represents “voter suppression” through subterfuge and moral erosion – concocting a scenario for the purpose of distorting the truth. A leadership with greater integrity, moral judgement, honesty and fairness along with less “petty people politics,” idiosyncratic personality issues and vindictiveness, is warranted.
The challenge to our petition as well as the whole matter has the potential for leaving a raw, soon to become rotten, stench in one’s nostrils. Where is the trust in a democracy? During the course of our hearing, other candidates around the county who were not endorsed were removed from the ballot in the same manner. Throughout this process, we learned from “legals” that the Democratic judiciary in Westchester are beholden to the Westchester County Chair for their positions on the court as are any others seeking such positions. The infractions and technicalities associated with our petition were not so great as to warrant a complete dismissal of our entire petition. However, under the circumstances as well as a contrived allegation of “fraud” along with the willingness to consider an entire petition “permeated with fraud” after a minimal and partial review, it didn’t seem that we had a modicum of a chance at remaining on the ballot as Democrats. Hence, the other reasons, based on speculation, used to justify our removal.
Submitted by Judith A. Beville
Greenburgh Town Clerk; 5/12/2023