Swansea voters decide Selectmen race, add new faces to government: Full unofficial results
SWANSEA — In this year's annual town election on Monday, April 14, voters elected Robert C. Medeiros to the Board of Selectmen, defeating Gary C. Lund in a tight race, according to unofficial polling results.
Medeiros received 496 votes; newcomer Lund, who is a lifelong Swansea resident, received 447 votes, according to unofficial results.
On the School Committee, Kristen Barkett Pettey snagged a seat in a close race over opponent Geraldine Mullaly, 469 to 439 votes, according to unofficial polling results. Only 30 votes separated the candidates.
As of the close of the polls on Election Day, no races were officially called. Total vote counts were to be certified following a hand count the day after the election, April 15.
Business development: Is Swansea's Route 103 the 'center of town'? Residents have a say in its future at meeting
Patrick J. Travis renewed a three-year term after serving on as vice chairman on the board, securing 675 votes.
Shady business: Swansea awarded $100K grant to plant new trees around town. Here's how many and where.
Incumbents Sarah K. Hunicke and Susan T. McMullen renewed their three-year terms as trustees of the Swansea Public Library, collecting 675 and 681 votes, respectively.
Brian D. Bell, Jonathan K. Furtado and Robert K. Furtado will hold their current positions as constables of the Swansea Police Department, each with a three-year term. Bell received 649 votes, followed by Robert K. Furtado which 680, and Jonathan K. Furtado who secured 661 votes.
Newcomer Joshua D. Harrington forged a successful campaign for the Parks Commission. He ran for a seat on the Swansea School Committee in the 2024 annual town election, but came in third with 1,154 votes according to election results. In this year's election, he garnered 730 votes, according to unofficial election results.
As Sewer Commissioner Richard C. Cunha's term was due to expire, Randy J. Lebeau beat out Jared Anthony Picchi for the seat in a 392-377 split.
Matthew David Beane returned to his seat on the Housing Authority with 677 votes.
Chairman of the Planning Board Timothy F. Cabral renewed a five-year term with 665 votes; Steven A. Bogle successfully secured a position on the board with a three-year term with 661.
According to a public records request for election information, no papers were pulled for the one available seat on the Community Preservation Committee, though Robert F. Silveira's term expires this year. The position received 111 write-ins, but a clear winner has not yet been determined.
This article originally appeared on The Herald News: 2025 Swansea town election results: Incumbents and newcomers voted in
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Commerce's Lutnick receives a timely reminder: ‘We cannot build bananas in America'
Ahead of Donald Trump's second inaugural, there were plenty of rumors that billionaire Howard Lutnick was well positioned to lead the Treasury Department — one of the most sought-after positions in any White House Cabinet. The Associated Press reported that some prominent supporters had lobbied on his behalf. Those efforts ultimately fell short, and Trump tapped Lutnick to serve as commerce secretary. As for why, exactly, he didn't get a more prominent position, The Bulwark reported two weeks after Election Day that Lutnick kept 'shooting himself in the foot' with foolish rhetoric. The report quoted a Trump adviser who said Lutnick needed to learn how to 'shut the f--- up.' And yet, he keeps finding microphones and making things worse for himself. This week, for example, Lutnick appeared on Capitol Hill, where he seemed eager to defend the president's policies on trade tariffs. As part of one especially memorable exchange, Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania asked the Cabinet secretary, 'What's the tariff on bananas?' He responded, 'The tariff on bananas would be representative of the countries that produce them,' before ultimately acknowledging that the rate would be 10%. The congresswoman reminded the witness that Walmart has already increased the cost of bananas by 8%. After pointing to the possibility of increasingly unlikely trade deals, Lutnick eventually declared: 'If you build in America, and you produce your product in America, there will be no tariff.' It was at that point that Dean lowered the boom. 'We cannot build bananas in America,' she explained. Lutnick didn't respond, which was just as well given the circumstances. Complicating matters for the commerce secretary, embarrassing moments like these have become a staple of his tenure. Lutnick announced that the president was preparing to waive taxes on Americans earning under $150,000 per year, only to walk that back soon after. He urged a national television audience to buy stock in Tesla, sparking an ethics controversy the White House struggled to defend. In one especially glaring incident, Lutnick suggested that only criminals would complain about missing a Social Security check. A month later, the secretary pitched a 'new model' of American employment that sounded an awful lot like the factory jobs that existed in the 19th century. And don't even get me started on his 'little screws to make iPhones' comments. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Lutnick's rhetorical record was proving to be so 'challenging' to the White House that officials asked him to start saying less. He might need a reminder. This article was originally published on
Chicago Tribune
9 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' Elon Musk's threat to withdraw Dragon capsule would leave NASA with 1 option: RussiaIf the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
10 hours ago
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON -- Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
