Tonkin complains only now that the shoe is on the other foot

| 03 Sep 2015 | 02:14

To the Editor:
To all the D's and R's that claim they will be "disenfranchised" when the Court vacates Mr. Tonkin from the "D" ballot, may I offer a suggestion? Visit the Board of Election office in the lower level of the Administration Building and ask Nadeen and Janice for, one, a copy of the 2015 election calendar pamphlet and, two, specific rules or forms applicable to candidates running for political office, District Attorney in this case.

The calendar lists the actions each candidate must complete and the deadlines for completing them. There are rules for a reason, and Mr. Tonkin most definitely used these rules to his advantage in 2007, properly so from what I've read of the March 30, 2007, Pocono Record article by Andrew Scott. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, there is a lot of "spin" that these rules don't apply to him now. Whether it's missing a deadline to file a $100 fee or failure to file a Statement of Financial Interest in a timely or accurate manner, the result is the same: removal/disqualification from the ballot.

During the Aug. 24 Board of Election hearing, Counsellor Jones' comments were very clear: The petition and the $100 fee had to be paid twice by Mr. Tonkin — as a Republican candidate for the Primary and as Democratic ballot candidate by the Aug. 10 deadline.

It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Bob Byrne
Dingmans Ferry