A dispute over candidate qualifications for the 2026 election intensified this week after Delegate to Congress aspirant Brett “Mac” McClafferty appealed his disqualification from the ballot, prompting two members of the Board of Elections to publicly challenge the authority of Supervisor of Elections Caroline Fawkes to investigate and disqualify candidates.
The dispute began June 15 when Fawkes notified McClafferty that he had been disqualified from seeking the office of Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives following an Elections System investigation into his nomination petitions.
In a two-page letter, Fawkes said the Elections System received six complaints alleging signatures were obtained through false or misleading representations. The investigation concluded that voters were not fully informed about the identity of the candidate, that nomination papers were circulated by an individual who was not qualified to serve as a circulator in the St. Croix district, and that affidavits submitted with the nomination papers contained inaccuracies. Fawkes said the Elections System reviewed video evidence as part of its investigation and determined that the integrity of the nomination papers had been compromised.
“The Elections System of the Virgin Islands has determined all signatures obtained through misrepresentation are hereby invalidated,” Fawkes wrote before concluding that McClafferty’s candidacy could not be certified.
Later that day, McClafferty circulated a notice of appeal to Fawkes, members of the Board of Elections, Government House officials, attorneys, and media organizations, calling the decision “erroneous” and demanding an emergency hearing before the Board of Elections.
In his appeal, McClafferty argued that his campaign had successfully cured deficiencies previously identified by Elections officials and pointed to emails from deputy supervisors in both districts indicating that those defects had been resolved.
McClafferty’s appeal also points to what multiple candidates have described as inconsistencies in the Elections System’s handling of his nomination papers. A May 30 Notice of Defect in McClafferty’s case informed the campaign that it had three days to cure deficiencies in its petition filings, but also required any additional signatures to be submitted by 5 p.m. on June 1. As Elections officials have said, the cure period begins the day after notice is given. McClafferty argued the deadline provided less time than the notice itself stated and contends that, had additional time been provided, his campaign would have submitted even more signatures.
He also challenged the factual basis of the investigation, submitting affidavits from campaign associates Jonathan James and David Greaux disputing the allegations made by the Elections System. James stated that he served as the sole circulator of McClafferty’s St. Croix petitions and that all signatures were collected in his presence. Greaux acknowledged encouraging individuals to sign the petitions but denied serving as a circulator, stating that any signatures obtained were gathered by or in the presence of James.
McClafferty further alleged that he was subjected to disparate treatment and questioned whether the supervisor of Elections possessed the authority to conduct the investigation and issue a disqualification.
The challenge comes as election officials continue to struggle to finalize the list of candidates for the 2026 election. Earlier this month, Fawkes postponed publication of the official candidate roster again until June 17, citing the need for additional review of nomination papers and responses from aspirants undergoing vetting. The delay followed a string of candidate disputes and appeals, including challenges involving former Sen. James “Jimmy” Weber III, Roy Sheridan, and now McClafferty. The repeated reviews have exposed growing tensions between the Office of the Supervisor of Elections and some members of the Board of Elections over who has the authority to investigate, qualify, and ultimately disqualify candidates seeking office.
That disagreement became public Monday when Board of Elections member Cleopatra Peter responded to McClafferty’s appeal email, arguing that the supervisor of Elections is not authorized to conduct investigations and that such authority rests solely with the Board of Elections under Virgin Islands law.
“I strongly recommend that the Board convene an emergency meeting to review the cases of all aspirants disqualified by Supervisor Fawkes,” Peter wrote, adding that the board has a duty to ensure a smooth election process.
Board member Barbara LaRonde subsequently expressed support for Peter’s position, writing that an emergency meeting was needed to address what she described as a misrepresentation of local and federal election law.
“Ms. Fawkes has no legal authority to act on behalf of the Board of Election who is the only body that can disqualify a federal candidate,” LaRonde wrote.
The exchange highlights a growing disagreement within the Elections System over who ultimately has the authority to investigate candidate filings and determine whether aspirants qualify for the ballot.
It was not immediately clear Tuesday whether the Board of Elections intends to convene an emergency meeting to hear McClafferty’s appeal or whether the supervisor of Elections plans to reconsider the disqualification, though Fawkes did acknowledge receipt of the email.
