Sign here. And here and here too? Nomination form protocol challenge sparks debate.

The decision sidesteps Block’s argument: that Gotra should be tossed because the handwriting on his nomination papers suggests that Gotra printed the name and address for each voter himself while voters signed their names. 

“When you look at the entire sheet, and it’s done in the same hand, it doesn’t give anybody confidence is all I’m saying,” John Pagliarini, an attorney for Block’s campaign, told the elections board Monday. “I am not saying any of these signatures are fraudulent. What I am saying is, it looks problematic.”

Signature fraud headlined recent state election cycles, including in the 2023 special election for Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District, where forged signatures, including names of dead people, were found on Lt. Gov. Sabina Matos’ nomination papers. Two campaign workers were later sentenced to probation for criminal charges for the fraud. Matos, who still qualified for the ballot, was never linked to the crime, but finished a distant fourth in the primary after being an early front-runner. 

In 2024, forged signatures were flagged on the nomination papers for Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and the No Labels party, which petitioned for state party recognition with the intent of propping up a third-party presidential candidate. The bipartisan group never ended up backing a candidate and has since been removed as a state party. Four people who worked for the out-of-state vendor hired to collect signatures for No Labels were indicted by a state grand jury in October 2024 on various voter and signature fraud charges, Tim Rondeau, a spokesperson for the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office, confirmed Wednesday. Two of the four defendants in the case have been sentenced, while the other two are still wanted, Rondeau said. The sealed indictments were first reported by GoLocalProv on July 18. 

The scandals prompted changes to state laws, coupled with more training for election administrators and candidates on the signature-gathering and verification requirements. But no one had ever quibbled over who fills in the name and address on the papers before the signatures.

Open to interpretation 

State law does not offer much help.

“Every voter signing a nomination paper shall sign in person with his or her name, place of residence, and street number, as it appears on the voting list,” the 1947 statute reads.

To Block, the “shall” applies not just to the signature, but the penning of the name and address.

“It’s pretty black and white,” Block, 60, of Barrington, said in an interview Monday, before the board meeting.

But Ray Marcaccio, legal counsel for the election board, had a different take. Marcaccio pointed to a 1952 state Supreme Court order stemming from an election dispute over a Woonsocket candidate’s signatures. The court order allows for a “more generous interpretation” of state law in signature disputes, Marcaccio said. 

“So long as the signature is penned by the endorser, then the remaining, so long as it’s permitted, can be done by a third party,” Marcaccio said.

Pagliarini maintained that the appearance of “hundreds” of signatures on Gotra’s nomination papers bearing the same handwriting for voters’ names and addresses was problematic. He also named two, more recent Supreme Court decisions as evidence to support a stricter conformance to the state law on signature gathering. 

“If you want a lesser approach, then the board should recommend to the General Assembly the need for clarity,” Pagliarini said. “This is such a blind spot in election law. Your guidance is needed.”

No guidance was given Monday. 

Instead, the board rejected the challenge because Pagliarini did not list every single name and signature being disputed on the objection letter, instead writing “form is not applicable” on the space given on his objection letter. The objection included 21 sheets from Gotra’s nomination papers as examples of what Pagliarini claimed were “hundreds” of names and addresses filled out by someone other than the voter. 

To write out every single name and line in question would be “impractical,” Pagliarini said, noting the 24-hour turnaround between when nomination papers were made available and when challenges were due to the Rhode Island Department of State. 

Gotra seized upon the technical error as reason to dismiss the complaint, pointing out the perceived hypocrisy in Block’s challenge about rules, while not following the rules himself.

The board ultimately agreed that it could not take on the responsibility of identifying which of the 1,538 names Gotra submitted — 1,069 of which were already approved after a vetting by local election administrators — included names and addresses written by someone other than the signatory.

Seeking clarity 

Several board members said they wanted to pursue more clarity on the issue in a future meeting.

“I think we need to revisit this and include this as part of our guidance,” Randy Jackvony, board member, said during the meeting. “People don’t run for office every day. We need to help them understand, to do their best to follow the rules.”

Gotra, owner of a now-defunct solar sales company who remains under investigation by the AG’s office for predatory and deceptive sales tactics, said that he did not write voters’ names and addresses on his papers, except for a handful of “very elderly” voters to help them. 

“My interpretation of the rules is very simple: when a person came up to sign the document, and there was a husband and wife, the husband would come up and sign the document, write his name, write his wife’s name and address and say ‘honey can you sign it,’” Gotra said. “I just presumed I needed to make sure they had to sign, and the signature had to match.”

Gotra said he collected most of the signatures himself, with a regular booth outside the food court in the Warwick Mall and another day stationed outside the Rhode Island DMV in Cranston. A first-time candidate, Gotra, 44, of East Greenwich, praised the process and state agencies that oversee elections for clear instructions for candidates. 

“I’ve dealt with a lot of state agencies in many ways,” Gotra said. “I am so impressed and so amazed by our elections process. How welcoming they are. The instructions were clear. It was beautiful and perfect.”

Block, who has run for governor twice before under different parties, said the opposite: that there were too many cumbersome and convoluted technical requirements for candidates to run for office.

“It’s a do-or-die process, and if you don’t do one thing right, you’re dead,” Block said.

If elected governor, Block said he would push for legislation clarifying the signature gathering process, and for separate policies extending the amount of time for candidates to submit challenges to nomination papers. 

“Our compressed calendar is a recipe for problems,” agreed John Marion, executive director for Common Cause Rhode Island. “There are many problems that could be alleviated if our election calendar was extended.”

Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore has pushed lawmakers to change the state elections calendar to allow more time and relieve pressure during various stages of the state election cycle. But the effort has fallen flat; the 2026 companion bills failed to advance out of either chamber, without even a preliminary hearing on the Senate side.

Another Amore initiative, to create an online signature portal for nomination papers to be signed and vetted, also stalled in the Senate committee this year despite passing in the House. 

The elections board meets again at 1:30 p.m. Thursday to review challenges to the nomination papers for Arlette Hidalgo, a Democratic candidate for state representative in District 12; Ana Borges, an independent Pawtucket mayoral candidate; and two Democrats running forPawtucket School Committee. 

The primary is Wednesday, Sept. 9, with a Nov. 3 general election. Early voting for the primary begins on Aug. 20. 

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.