Yonkers Councilwoman Sandy Annabi, D-2nd District, met with the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office’s public integrity unit on Tuesday.

She presented her list of irregularities that she claims constitute voter fraud in the Democratic primary for Westchester County’s 17th legislative district. I’ve attached a copy of her complaint below.

Annabi lost the primary by five votes to four-term incumbent Jose Alvarado, who released his own statement about Annabi’s allegations on Wednesday.

For the record, Alvarado misrepresents some of Annabi’s positions on the city budget, capital budgets for the schools and a land disposition agreement (LDC) for downtown redevelopment. Annabi voted against the LDC because she said it was a bad deal for city taxpayers; she voted against the city budget because of cuts to police; and the City Council has not yet voted on the capital improvement bonding for the schools.

Here is the text from both statements. Annabi’s is VERY long:

M E M O R A N D U M
From: Sandy Annabi – Candidate for the 17th District seat, Westchester County Board of
Legislators
To: Janet DiFiore – District Attorney for Westchester County, and A.D.A. Brian
Conway – Public Integrity Bureau
To: Asst. U.S. Attorney David J. Kennedy – Voting Rights Section – U.S. Attorney’s
Office for the Southern District of New York
Cc: Asst. Atty. Gen. Christopher Coates – Chief of the Voting Rights Section, Civil
Rights Division – Department of Justice
Re: Election Crimes and Suppression of Minority Voters During September 15th
Westchester County Democratic Primary – Request for Criminal Investigation and
Federal Election Monitors to Supervise the November 3, 2009, General Election
Date: October 19, 2009
Introduction
In 2001, I was elected the 2d Council District representative to the Yonkers City Council
I am the current Democratic Majority Leader. My term ends December 31, 2009. Term limits
prevent me from seeking a third term.
I am currently a candidate for the 17th District seat on the Westchester County Board of
Legislators. The incumbent and Democratic Party nominee is Jose Alvarado. I challenged Mr.
Alvarado in the Democratic primary election held on September 15, 2009.
Likewise, four candidates competed in the September 15th primary for my current seat on
the Yonkers City Council: Wilson Terrero, the Democratic Party nominee; Virginia Perez, his
chief opponent; Eulogio Santiago; and Jose Roman.
The September 15th Democratic Primary
According to the official tally of the Westchester Board of Elections, 1,857 votes were
cast in the 17th District race: 931 for Mr. Alvarado, 926 for me, a difference of five votes.
[Exhibit 1.]
Likewise, 1,296 votes were cast in the 2d Council District race: 452 for Mr. Terrero, 442
for Ms. Perez, a difference of ten votes. Mr. Santiago received 260 votes, and Mr. Roman
1
received 142. [Exhibit 2.]
As demonstrated herein, but for election crimes and illegal suppression of voters, it is
probable that I won the Democratic primary, as did Ms. Perez.
I hold the Conservative and Independence Party lines, and Ms. Perez holds the
Conservative, Independence and Working Families Party lines, and therefore, our names will
appear on the ballot for the November 3d general election. However, no minority party candidate
has ever won a primary or general election against a Democratic Party nominee.
Voter registration data explains why this is the case. There are 11,989 registered
Democrats in the 17th County District, but only 836 registered Independents and 379
Conservatives. [Exhibit 3.] Likewise, there are 7,145 registered Democrats in the Yonkers 2d
Council District, but only 501 Independents and 92 Working Families voters. [Exhibit 4.]
No Republicans are running in the November 3d general election for either the 17th
County District seat or the Yonkers 2d Council District seat. Hence, Messrs. Alvarado and
Terrero, as the Democratic primary winners, obtained a virtually insurmountable advantage over
me and Ms. Perez in the general election.
Election Crimes
Yonkers matrimonial attorney, Wilson Soto, Esq., represented Mr. Alvarado in election
litigation against me, and represented Mr. Terrero in election litigation against Ms. Perez.1 He is
the managing partner of his law firm located at:
Soto, Sanchez & Negron, LLP
281 South Broadway
Yonkers, New York 10705
(914) 378-9000
[Exhibit 5.]
Election Law § 1-104(22) states: “The term ‘residence’ shall be deemed to mean that
place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he, wherever
1 See, Piedad Abreau v. Sandy Annabi, Supreme Court, Westchester County – Index
Number 17009/2009, http://www.e-law.com//CaseAttorneys.asp?CaseID=5923000 and Jose
Alvarado v. Sandy Annabi, Supreme Court, Westchester County – Index No. 21336,
http://www.e-law.com//CaseAttorneys.asp?CaseID=5963974, and Piedad Abreau v. Virginia
Perez, Supreme Court, Westchester County – Index Number 17011/2009,
http://www.e-law.com//CaseAttorneys.asp?CaseID=5923002. (Piedad Abreau is the partisan
voter/campaign worker for both Messrs. Alvarado and Terrero.)
2
temporarily located, always intends to return.” Thus, under the Election Law, “[t]he term
‘residence,’ … is synonymous with ‘domicile.’” Hosley v. Curry, 85 N.Y.2d 447, 649 N.E.2d
1176 (1995); People v. O’Hara, 96 N.Y.2d 378, 385, 754 N.E.2d 155, 159, 729 N.Y.S.2d 396,
400 (2001) (“The definition of ‘residence’ comes from traditional notions of domicile.”); Matter
of Brunner, 41 N.Y.2d 917, 918 (1977) ( “Residence … is defined in terms of domicile.”) While
“[a] person may have two or more residences,” he “can only have one domicile.” Laufer v.
Hauge, 140 A.D.2d 671, 672 (2d Dept. 1988).
Public Officer’s Law §§ 3 and 30, and Yonkers City Charter § C4-3, mandate that
candidates reside in the political subdivision – in this case, the council district and county district
– in which they seek office.2
In 2001, former Yonkers Mayor, John Spencer, appointed Mr. Soto to represent the 2d
Council District when Lorraine Lopez resigned to take a position in Spencer’s Administration.
Hence, Mr. Soto could not have legally held that position unless he was domiciled in the 2d
Council District.
The residency requirement to hold elective office in a district is the same to vote in that
district. People v. O’Hara, 96 N.Y.2d 378, 385, 754 N.E.2d 155, 159, 729 N.Y.S.2d 396, 400
(2001). As mandated by Election Law § 5-210(5)(k)(xi), in registering to vote with a county
Board of Elections, the voter swears his or her residence address is as stated on the registration
document.
Ordinarily, voters go to their assigned polls, sign their names to computer-generated
registration lists, enter the voting machine and vote. On rare occasions, a voter’s name is
erroneously omitted from the list. In that event, instead of turning a voting machine lever, the
voter marks a paper ballot, seals it inside an official envelope, and writes an affidavit printed on
the outside giving the voter’s current residence address. The voter must sign a statement
mandated by Election Law § 8-302(e)(ii) confirming his or her current residence address, and
swearing the information is true and that “if it is not true, I can be convicted and fined up to
$5,000 and/or jailed for up to four years.”
On September 15th, Mr. Soto went to 15 Hamilton Avenue and cast his vote for his
clients, Messrs. Alvarado and Terrero. He voted in Ward 4, Election District 6. However, he did
2 Consistent with case law determinations of domicile, Election Law § 5-104(2) recites
that “ In determining a voter’s qualification to register and vote, the board to which such
application is made shall consider, in addition to the applicant’s expressed intent, … the
applicant’s … residence for income tax purposes, … leaseholds, sites of personal and real property
owned by the applicant, motor vehicle and other personal property registration … to determine
the qualification of an applicant to vote in an election district within its jurisdiction.” Mr. Soto’s
motor vehicle registration and operator’s license address and his residence provided to the New
York State Tax Commission and Internal Revenue Service should be investigated.
3
not use a voting machine which, in itself, is suspect. Instead, he submitted an affidavit ballot
[Exhibit 6] in which he swore he resides at 279 South Broadway in Yonkers, the building
adjacent to the building where his law office is located. Mr. Soto’s stated address at 279 South
Broadway is within the 17th County District and Yonkers 2d Council District, contained in wards
1, 2, 4, 7 and 8. [Exhibit 7.]
In September, Mr. Soto sent out the following invitation which he also published at
http://www.prba.net/pdfs/PRBA_BBQ_Invitation.pdf:
Soto Sanchez & Negron, LLP
&
The Puerto Rican Bar Association
Cordially Invites you to a Reception in
Honor of Justice Sonia Sotomayor
and the Commencement of the
2009 Supreme Court Term
Monday, October 5th, 2009
From 6pm to 9pm
at the residence of
Wilson Soto, Esq.
8 Huron Road
Yonkers, New York 10708
Please RSVP to:
Josie@ (914) 378-9000
Wilson@SotoSanchez&Negron.com
[Exhibit 8.]
Hence, Mr. Soto swore to the Westchester Board of Elections his current domicile is 279
South Broadway in Yonkers, and yet, at the same time, announced to the world he lives at 8
Huron Road in Yonkers. This is critical because 8 Huron Road is not within either the 17th
County District or the Yonkers 2d Council District, but instead, is within the 11th Ward, 5th
Election District. [Exhibit 9; see, Westchester Code § 107.31(2).]3
Property records reveal the closing for 8 Huron Road took place on October 16, 2006, and
3 The document, generated from the Board of Elections website, indicates “Precinct
251105.” The number 25 means Yonkers; 11 means Ward 11; and 05 means the 5th Election
District.
4
Mr. Soto was the closing attorney for that transaction. [Exhibit 10.]
A comprehensive online search failed to reveal any record of any kind in which Mr. Soto
listed his residence address as 279 South Broadway in Yonkers. For example, for his student
pilot’s license, Mr. Soto gave the Federal Aviation Administration his office address. [Exit 11.]
A credit report lists his previous residence address as 15 Convent Avenue in Yonkers. [Exhibit
12.]
Dr. Andre Celestin is the owner of 279 South Broadway. He purchased the building in
April of 2006. It has three stories and twelve apartment units. Dr. Celestin manages the building
himself. In his affidavit attached, Dr. Celestin states Mr. Soto is not and has not been a tenant or
resident of that building anytime since April of 2006. [Exhibit 13.]
By casting his vote for Messrs. Alvarado and Terrero, despite living at 8 Huron Road
outside the districts seats for which his clients are seeking elective office, I submit that Mr. Soto
likely committed the following four felonies and two misdemeanors.
Election Law § 17-132(3), entitled “Illegal voting,” states in pertinent part: “Any person
who … votes or offers or attempts to vote at an election, in an election district or from a place
where he does not reside … is guilty of a felony.” Under Penal Law 55.10(1)(b), unclassified
felonies are deemed to be Class E felonies.4
Election Law § 17-104(4), entitled “False registration,” states: “Any person who …
Knowingly gives a false residence within the election district when registering as an elector … is
guilty of a felony.
Likewise, Penal Law § 175.35 is violated “when, knowing that a written instrument
contains a false statement or false information, and with intent to defraud the state” the
fraudulent voter “offers or presents it to a public office … with the knowledge or belief that it will
be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records” of that public
office, in this case, the Westchester County Board of Elections.
Submitting an affidavit ballot operates to register the voter at the address stated. Election
Law § 5-210(6), entitled “Registration and enrollment and change of enrollment upon
application,” states:
A person who willfully makes a material false statement in any application for
4 § 55.10(1)(b) states in full: “Any offense defined outside this chapter which is declared
by law to be a felony without specification of the classification thereof, or for which a law
outside this chapter provides a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year, shall be
deemed a class E felony.” A class E felony is punishable by up to four years in prison. Penal
Law 70.00(2)(e).
5
registration and enrollment and/or transfer of registration and enrollment or
special enrollment by mail, or who knowingly makes a false affirmation, or who
offers or attempts to offer any application for registration and enrollment or
transfer of registration and enrollment or special enrollment knowing that the
applicant is not qualified to register or enroll, or transfer his or her registration
and enrollment or to specially enroll, shall be guilty of a class E felony.
In addition, Election Law § 17-102(5), entitled “Misdemeanors at, or in connection with,
primary elections, caucuses, enrollment in political parties, committees, and conventions,” states:
“Any person who: … Fraudulently or wrongfully does any act tending to affect the result of any
primary election, caucus or convention … is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Likewise, Election Law §
17-108(2), entitled “False affidavits; mutilation, destruction or loss of registry list or affidavits,”
states in pertinent part: “An applicant for registration who shall make, incorporate or cause to be
incorporated a material false statement in an application for registration … is guilty of a
misdemeanor.”
Attorney John O’Hara, a frequent candidate for office in Brooklyn, was convicted of
these crimes for doing what Mr. Soto did. People v. O’Hara, 96 N.Y.2d 378, 385, 754 N.E.2d
155, 159, 729 N.Y.S.2d 396, 400 (2001). Mr. Soto’s illegal vote represented 20% of the
differential by which I lost the primary, i.e., one of five votes.
These crimes must be investigated.
Soto’s Violation of the Code of Professional Conduct
There were ninety-seven absentee ballots cast in the primary. The Westchester Board of
Elections disqualified eighty-seven of them. In addition, it disqualified more than four votes in
my favor on questionable grounds. Once it declared Mr. Alvarado won the primary by five
votes, he sued to have the Supreme Court declare him the winner. Mr. Soto commenced that
proceeding.
Rule 3.7(a) of the New York Code of Professional Conduct codifies the attorney-witness
rule. The rule makes clear that “A lawyer shall not act as advocate before a tribunal in a matter
in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact ….” Mr. Soto’s criminal
vote for his client was a critically significant fact because it reduced Mr. Alvarado’s victory over
me from five votes to four in an election where the Board of Elections had disqualified many
more than four votes in my favor. Mr. Soto blatantly violated the rule.
Suppression of Minority Voters
Before the primary, I requested the U.S. Attorney provide federal election monitors, as I
had reason to fear suppression of minority voters who have been my traditional base of support.
[Exhibit 14.]
6
Any adult, registered voter can apply online to be a poll worker.5 In addition, Election
Law § 8-500 permits political parties to assign poll watchers to vet election sites.
Mr. Alvarado, through the Democratic Party, organized his partisans to be poll workers
and watchers. I have collected anecdotal evidence that poll workers at various sites asked voters
for whom they intended to vote, and turned away those who said they intended to vote for me.
Various stratagems were used. Sometimes, the voter was told to “come back on November 3d.”
Other times, the voter was falsely told his or her name was not in the registration book. Yet other
times, the voter was falsely told he or she was at the wrong polling site. And at yet other times,
the voter was told he or she was too late to vote, even though the voter was already inside the
building and in line by the voting machine.
Three examples make the point. Eileen M. Vaughan is fifty-four years old and resides at
359 Walnut Street, 3d Floor, Yonkers, New York 10701, with her daughters Kiana R. Vaughan
(age thirty), Stonisha Vaughan (age twenty-six), Tricia Scott (age twenty-one), and her
handicapped brother, Michael A. Francis (age forty-nine). The telephone number at the family
home is 914-312-3282.
Ms. Vaughan related the following. On September 15th, she, her daughters and her
brother, arrived at the Nodine Hill Community Center located at 140 Filmore Street in Yonkers.
Her brother has difficulty reading and writing. Poll workers told him and Ms. Vaughan’s
daughters their names were not in the registration book, even though they had received notice of
the primary and their polling site from the Westchester Board of Elections. [Exhibit 15.]
Ms. Vaughan insisted her brother be provided a written ballot and pencil. At first, the
poll workers refused. Then they delayed complying with her request. Finally, Mr. Francis was
given a written ballot and pencil, but Tricia Scott, standing the entire time in line, was told she
was too late and could not vote because it was after 9:00 P.M. These four voters will attest they
intended to vote for me. Had those votes been counted, and Mr. Soto’s illegal vote not counted, I
would have tied with Mr. Alvarado in the primary, forcing a runoff election.
Uncounted Votes
Joseph Stalin said “It is not the people who vote that count. It is the people who count the
votes.” Six paper ballot votes for me were disqualified by the Westchester Board of Elections on
bogus grounds. One voter made his intention crystal clear by circling the box with my name and
putting a thick, black dot inside the box. Another wrote my name inside the box designated
“Sandy Annabi” but did not color in the circle. A third, one Mildred Smith, had registered as a
Democrat when she voted for President Obama, and voted for me, but her vote was disqualified.
5 The form is found at: http://www.westchestergov.com/pdfs/BOE_PollWorker
Application.pdf
7
Three Arab voters who voted for me were disqualified. A relative, Ghazi Annabi, signed
an “x” which his wife witnessed in writing because he was weak and unable to write following
dialysis treatment. Notably, Election Law § 8-312(1) requires only that a voter “mark his ballot,”
not sign it. Another, Mary Youkhan, has arthritic hands, but her vote was disqualified because it
did not graphically match her signature on file with the Board of Elections, even though she
listed the same address on the ballot as her address on file. A third, that of Joseph Pudassary,
was deemed invalid because my secretary, Gina Saglimbeni, picked up Mr. Pudassary’s absentee
ballot, and on his paper ballot, her name was spelled with an “e” at the end instead of an “I.”6
Mr. Soto commenced the legal action for Mr. Alvarado against me on September 23d,
and I was served the night September 24th. I engaged Election Law specialist and former
Supreme Court justice, Thomas J. Spargo, to represent me. He appeared before Justice Gerald
Loehr on Friday, September 25th, and the case was put over for hearing until Tuesday, September
29th. While in Court, Mr. Spargo failed to file a plenary action on my behalf. Instead, he filed an
a cross-petition to Mr. Alvarado’s petition, but failed to seek Justice Loehr’s permission to
proceed in that fashion. As a result, on September 29th, my cross-petition was dismissed as
procedurally improper, and none of my voters were permitted to testify to have their votes for me
counted.
Flagrant Violations of FOIL
I made several Freedom of Information Law requests to the Westchester County Board of
Elections. I did not receive a single response – not one.
On September 22d, my campaign consultant made a request in his own name, and for me,
seeking the following documents:
• envelope affidavits for paper ballots;
• total paper ballots;
• number of paper ballots disqualified;
• decision key for disqualifying paper ballots;
• criteria for disqualifying paper ballots;
• total absentee ballots;
• decision key for disqualifying absentee ballots;
• criteria for disqualifying absentee ballots;
• tally for votes cast by voting machines, broken down by Ward and
Election District within each Ward;
• tally for votes cast on devices for handicapped voters;
• tally for total votes cast in the primary;
• tally for total votes disqualified in the primary;
• copies of all voter complaints, whether submitted in writing, or notes taken
6
8
by Westchester Board of Elections personnel for complaints submitted
orally, whether in person or by telephone; and
• internal documents or correspondence sent or received about voter
complaints.
[Exhibit 16.] We wanted to cross-reference disqualified votes with the Board of Elections’s
registration lists. Several voters told me they were turned away by poll workers who insisted
they were Republicans, even though these voters insisted they were registered Democrats.
Public Officers Law § 89(3) mandates that“Each entity subject to the provisions of this
article, within five business days of the receipt of a written request for a record reasonably
described, shall make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in
writing or furnish a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such request and a statement of the
approximate date when such request will be granted or denied…”
Under Public Officers Law § 89(5)(f), exemptions to the Freedom of Information Law are
narrowly construed, and the agency seeking to prevent disclosure bears the burden of
demonstrating the applicability of a particular, statutory exemption. New York times Co. V. New
York State Dep’t of Health, 173 Misc.2d 310, 660 N.Y.S.2d 810 (N.Y. Cnty 1997); Legal Aid
Society of Northeastern New York v. New York State Dep’t of Social Services, 195 A.D.2d 150,
650 N.Y.S.2d 785 (3d Dept. 1993). The Court of Appeals has “repeatedly held that FOIL is to be
liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted
maximum access to the records of government (citations omitted).” Federation of New York
State Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. New York City Police Dept., 73 N.Y.2d 92, 95, 535 N.E.2d
279, 280-281, 538 N.Y.S.2d 226, 228 (1989).
The Board of Elections did not claim any exemptions. It simply refused to respond to any
of my repeated FOIL requests. Ms. Perez reports she had the same experience.
Conspiracy to Manufacture False Police Report
Ms. Perez advises that, on August 21st around 9:30 P.M., she came upon her opponent,
Mr. Terrero, tearing down her campaign posters and putting his up in their place. She confronted
him, and later, filed a police report to document the incident, and made a formal complaint to the
state Board of Elections in Albany, alleging Mr. Terrero violated the state Fair Campaign Code, 9
NYCRR § 6201.1, promulgated under the authority of Election Law § 3-106.
In response, on September 2d, Mr. Terrero filed a police complaint in which he claimed
Ms. Perez tore down one of his posters “from the Yonkers Family Car Service” owned by a
Euripes Acquino. [Exhibit 17.] He claimed Acquino “witnessed the incident,” and Acquino told
a police detective he confronted Ms. Perez and “told Perez to leave the poster alone.”
On September 3d, Mr. Terrero issued a press release claiming “Mr. Euripes Aquino of
9
Yonkers states for the police that he saw Council Candidate Virginia Perez ripping down
campaign posters of County Legislator Jose Alvarado” as well as Terrero’s poster. [Exhibit 18.]
On September 4th, the Spanish language newspaper, El Sol, published Mr. Terrero’s story
about the poster, reporting that Ms. Perez committed a crime:
Mrs. Perez allegedly committed removal and tearing from the wall
the posters of the candidate, Legislator Jose Alvarado and Wilson
Terrero, candidate for the 2nd council district…. [T]his young lady
is breaking the laws. Mr. Euripides Aquino personally made a
formal complaint against Mrs. Perez for her illegal actions. If
found guilty she can be sentenced to years in prison in accordance
with the law.
[Exhibit 19; translation attached.]
Ms. Perez advises that several voters told her they intended to vote for her, but changed
their minds because they thought she would soon be imprisoned.
Under, Penal Law § 210.45, filing a false police complaint is a crime. On October 7,
2009, my campaign consultant, who is also assisting Ms. Perez, met Acquino for a recorded
interview in the presence of Ms. Perez. Acquino did not recognize her; admitted “I never, never
saw her,” and later to Ms. Perez directly: “I’ve never seen you before in my life”; and relevant to
this memorandum, admitted it was her “political opponents” who put him up to making the false
report. [Exhibit 20, transcript of this interview.]7
The progression of events and Mr. Terrero’s press release mentioning Mr. Alvarado,
whose name is omitted from Mr. Terrero’s police complaint, lead to the reasonable inference that
“political opponents” means both Messrs. Terrero and Alvarado. In other words, they conspired
to have Acquino make false statements to the police to manufacture Mr. Terrero’s false police
report.
Conclusion
The above demonstrates the September primary was stolen from me, and for all intents
and purposes, this makes it nearly impossible for me to win the November 3d general election.
But I am not the only victim here. The public is the victim. I request these matters be
investigated, and that federal election monitors vet the November 3d general election.
_
Sandy Annabi

ALVARADO CALLS FOR AN END TO ANNABI’S BASELESS ALLEGATIONS
A Pattern of Distortion for Political Gain
YONKERS, N.Y., October 20, 2009—- Residents of southwest Yonkers are fed-up with Councilmember Annabi’s wild assertions that she would have won the Democratic primary election had all of the ballots her legal team challenged been reviewed.

These assertions are a complete fantasy and serve to divert attention to the important issues facing the residents of the 17th district. Councilmember Annabi’s claims of election fraud were thoroughly reviewed and all of her claims were denied by a Westchester County Court Judge.

Sandi Annabi lost at the polls, she lost at the Board of Elections and she lost in Court… now she wants to try her case before the media. Despite her assertions, the records show that the challenged votes were not enough to overcome her deficit.

The Alvarado campaign added that Councilwoman Annabi’s perpetuation of baseless fraud allegations is a continuation of her strategy as a councilmember to govern via press release. Legislator Alvarado says that “For the past eight years, Councilmember
Annabi has incessantly sought the glare of the cameras while failing to do the heavy lifting to actually get the job done.

Whether it is having public meetings to discuss violence in the community, then voting “No” when it comes time to adequately fund
police overtime, whether it is talking about education, then failing to approve enough capital money to provide safe and secure buildings for our schoolchildren or whether it is saying that we need jobs for the people, then voting against projects that will provide jobs and needed revenue for Yonkers – Councilmember Annabi has shown a pattern of grandstanding to get her name in the spotlight, while failing to back-up her rhetoric”

County Legislator Jose Alvarado is focused on talking to the people of the district and running on his record of delivering to the residents of the 17th District. He has an accomplished record of approving money to improve public safety, providing safe, fair and affordable housing and funding projects that improve quality of life and serve as
economic engines for every person in Yonkers.

He looks forward to serving the residents of the 17th district for another two years.

###########################################