Michael Walsh, the Lynnfield attorney orchestrating Winthrop’s fight against the town’s compliance with the 3A housing law, was disqualified as a candidate for state attorney general due to fraud allegations.

The State Ballot Law Commission, after several days of arguments and considerations, on Friday rejected more than 1,000 signatures presented by Mr Walsh, while accepting arguments and evidence that hundreds of names on his nomination petitions appeared to have been written by the same person.

All five members of the state commission – including Joseph Boncore of Winthrop, an attorney and former Massachusetts state senator – endorsed the disqualifications of both Mr Walsh and fellow Republican Anne Manning Martin, a candidate for lieutenant governor, on the same grounds.

Although from Lynnfield, Mr Walsh has played a prominent political role in Winthrop, leading a group of citizens in suing the state over the 3A housing law, and in convincing the Town Council to officially attach the town to his effort rather than comply with the law.

Winthrop role

The Winthrop Town Council, in agreeing to formally join that private lawsuit, solidified Winthrop’s position as one of a handful of cities and towns in eastern Massachusetts still fighting 3A compliance and accepting the corresponding cuts in state funding, now estimated to involve some $2.5 million in lost or disqualified grants.

The Town Council agreed to join the Walsh-led lawsuit on a 5-3 vote at its April 14 meeting after two previous meetings in which members contentiously debated the propriety and wisdom of the town joining a private legal case – especially in a situation marked by debates over ethical ties between council members and Mr Walsh’s team.

Among those concerns, the president of the Winthrop Town Council, Jim Letterie, warned against accepting a partnership in which private attorneys might be effectively defining and arguing the town’s interest. He also questioned the decision by some Town Council members to sign Mr Walsh’s private lawsuit as individual complainants, before the council itself joined the case, using their official council identifications.

The drama included an April 7 council meeting that featured an hour-long standoff in which several council members, in a bid to force a vote to join Mr Walsh’s lawsuit, refused to let Mr Letterie adjourn the meeting. During that confrontation, several council members eager to join the Walsh lawsuit were seen repeatedly engaging in phone discussions, leading state officials to rule that those communications should be considered public records and ordered the town to publicly release their details.

Records order

The town and the five council members – all advocates of the town joining Mr Walsh’s lawsuit – have not complied with that state order. The council members told town officials they had no such phone records they felt they needed to disclose, and the Winthrop officials have not met the state’s order that the town explain what exemption to public disclosure it sees as applicable in the case.

“I’m a local town councilor who is just trying to do what’s best for the town,” council member Joe Romano, the leader of the panel’s pro-Walsh majority, said in addressing the matter on social media. “Implications of anything otherwise is laughable to me.”

The complaints of fraud against Mr Walsh and Ms Manning Martin were both tied to their hiring of a consultant, Joseph Bronske, to collect nomination signatures for them. Experts told the state ballot commission that hundreds of signatures on the nomination papers submitted by Mr Walsh and Ms Manning Martin appeared to be identical copies, with some involving the names of dead people. Mr Bronske did not testify before the commission.

Mr Walsh needed 10,000 signatures of Massachusetts residents to appear on the November ballot as a challenger against the state’s incumbent attorney general, Andrea Joy Campbell. Mr Walsh is a Republican and Ms Campbell is a Democrat who brought her own lawsuit against Winthrop and other eastern Massachusetts towns not complying with the 3A law.

Advance warning

Mr Walsh’s campaign for attorney general presented 10,677 signatures and the commission rejected 1,021 of them, leaving him with 9,656 signatures. The case against him and Ms Manning Martin was brought by state Democratic party leaders, who said the two candidates submitted the signatures to state officials even after being warned by local clerks that they saw problems on the nomination sheets.

Mr Boncore was the lone member of the state ballot commission whose signature did not appear on the panel’s decisions. Asked about that omission, Mr Boncore said he supported the commission’s actions in both cases.

Mr Walsh promised in a letter posted on social media that he would appeal the commission’s decision. In the letter, Mr Walsh did not address the details of the commission’s findings but argued that Mr Boncore and two other commission members should have recused themselves from the matter because they had made campaign contributions to Ms Campbell.

The 3A law requires towns to add zones allowing multifamily housing. Winthrop could comply without adding housing by rezoning parts of town that already have multifamily housing. Mr Letterie long led the opposition to Winthrop complying, arguing he valued the importance of resisting state power, even though the Massachusetts constitution gives state officials power over zoning. He then took his position against joining the Walsh lawsuit, and later said that he would accept compliance with 3A if the matter comes to a vote in the Town Council, where he holds the right to schedule votes.