The Boston Globe today published a letter by the incumbent, William F. Galvin, following up on the publication of my op-ed in yesterday's edition. Mr. Galvin's letter is revealing for what it does not say.

Mr. Galvin claims that he "vigorously investigated" the allegations of fraud in the signature-gathering process with respect to the anti-gay marriage ballot measure. He then goes on to state that, through a "comparison" between the anti-gay marriage measure and the petition relating to the sale of wine, he found that 14,288 signatures appeared on both petitions, "leaving 109,068 signatures..."

Yet, he does not reveal that he certified all of the 123,356 signatures filed in support of the anti-gay marriage petition. Why did he certify all of the signatures presented in the face of these findings? And why did he not publicly reveal the results of his investigation prior to announcing the certification? If Mr. Galvin suspected fraud with 14,000 plus signatures, then he should not have certified those signatures and he should have announced why he was not doing so. Beyond that, is it really a "vigorous" investigation to simply do this comparison? I argue (as I did in yesterday's Globe op-ed) that such an investigation should include a survey of a random sampling of those who signed the petition to ensure that the signatures presented related to legitimate public support for the petition. Mr. Galvin chose not to do that. The cloud of impropriety over this petition remains.