Marshfield Registrars Kill Eric Kelley Recall Petition, Ruling Petition Blanks Did Not Meet Town Charter Requirements
MARSHFIELD — May 29 — In a 2-1 vote Friday morning, the Marshfield Board of Registrars invalidated a recall petition targeting Select Board member Eric S. Kelley, ruling that the petition blanks issued by the Town Clerk did not comply with the Town Charter’s requirements for an official seal and issuance date — ending a month-long hearing process that drew hundreds of signatures, five objectors, and sharp disputes over election law, alleged signature fraud, and the limits of clerical discretion.
The Full Story
The May 29 ruling capped nearly four weeks of proceedings that began May 1, when the Board of Registrars convened for the first time to organize its response to a certified recall petition against Kelley. The petition, filed by lead petitioners Lara Brait and Sean Costello, had been certified by Town Clerk Narice Casper on April 21, 2026 — just before the April 24 filing deadline — with 3,877 verified signatures, well above the 3,174 required to clear the 15-percent-per-precinct threshold under Marshfield’s Town Charter.
Five objections arrived in the clerk’s office between April 23 and April 28: two from resident Stephen Lynch, and one each from residents Pamela Keith, Joseph Pecevich, and Kelley himself. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 55B, Section 7, those objections triggered a mandatory hearing before the Board of Registrars.
Building the Process: May 1 and May 11 Meetings
The three-member Board of Registrars — acting chair David O’Reilly, Walter Sterling, and David Kohler — was, by its own admission, largely unfamiliar with recall hearing procedures. At the May 1 organizational meeting, special counsel Lauren Goldberg of KP Law — retained by the town to advise the board independently — spent nearly an hour walking registrars through the framework: the burden of proof falls on objectors; the board’s standard is “substantial evidence”; legal objections would be heard first, with signature-by-signature challenges to follow. Town Clerk Casper recused herself as a board member for purposes of the recall proceedings, citing her separate administrative role in the process.
The board voted unanimously on May 1 to schedule the formal hearing for May 22, and to return on May 7 to adopt procedural rules and a filing schedule. (The May 7 meeting was later rescheduled to May 11 and, due to O’Reilly’s absence, required Casper to invoke the rule of necessity to maintain a quorum to vote a temporary chair.)
At the May 11 procedural session, Goldberg established filing deadlines requiring objectors to submit line-by-line signature challenges by May 14, preliminary witness lists by May 15, and written legal arguments by May 19. Petitioners were to respond by May 20. The board agreed it would not accept sworn affidavits as substitutes for in-person testimony on signature authenticity — a standard drawn from State Ballot Law Commission practice — and that the board would consolidate overlapping objector arguments where possible to avoid repetition.
The May 22 Hearing: Legal Arguments and Petitioner Testimony
The May 22 hearing in the Select Board Chamber was the most consequential session. Objectors Lynch, Keith, Pecevich, and Kelley — none of whom designated a lead spokesperson — presented their legal arguments in the order their filings were received, with petitioners’ attorney Richard Ash responding on behalf of Brait and Costello.
Lynch led with what would prove to be the most consequential argument: the petition blanks issued by the Town Clerk lacked the official seal and issuance date required by Section 8-1-2 of the Marshfield Town Charter. He produced a copy of the 2025 recall petition blanks, which bore the town seal, and argued the current blanks were fundamentally defective by comparison. He also cited a letter from Michelle Tassinari, Director of Legal Counsel in the Secretary of State’s Elections Division, which he characterized as confirming that state law does not govern Marshfield’s recall process — that the town charter alone controls.
Lynch further argued that the petition blanks showed evidence of systematic signature fraud — entire pages appearing to have been completed in a single hand — and urged the board to invalidate the petition on legal grounds immediately rather than wade through thousands of signatures. “You could rule right now to reverse the recall,” Lynch told the board. “It would do everyone a favor.”
