PROVIDENCE — The state Board of Elections yesterday denied the appeal of a School Committee candidate who said the decision to nullify the original declaration papers and endorsements caused his candidacy irreparable harm.

Vincent D. Bradley, 85, filed an appeal with the state board July 16, after he lost the endorsement of the West Warwick Democratic Town Committee in a vote he said should never have happened.

“My original nomination papers are valid,” he told the board yesterday morning. “The endorsement is very valuable to me as a newcomer to West Warwick politics, and should not be taken from me on grounds of a minor technicality being used by some for their own benefit.”

The West Warwick Board of Canvassers declared all paperwork and endorsements for the seven School Committee candidates null and void July 9 after it was discovered that the declaration papers did not state what term the candidates were running for.

There are three seats up for election on the board — two full four-year terms, and one two-year seat, which is the remainder of the term of former member Thomas V. Iannitti Jr., who resigned from the board shortly after being reelected in 2006. By Town Charter, the Town Council appointed a person to fill that seat — Bruce E. Vanasse — until the next election, which will be held in November.

Candidates were required to submit their declaration forms by June 25, and were later given nomination forms to gather signatures from registered voters. The Democratic Town Committee met later the same day and voted to endorse incumbent James A. Williamson, John Pettinicchio Jr., who serves as town sergeant, and Bradley for three at-large seats. The issue of the missing term lengths came up at the meeting, said Democratic Town Committee President Frank Giorgio.

“We voted to endorse to fill the three open seats [at large] and said we’ll let the Board of Canvassers work it out and live with whatever they decide to do,” he said.

Officials didn’t meet to work things out until nearly two weeks later. At that meeting, attended by candidates, residents and local politicians, some decried an option to file an affidavit after the fact to designate the term each candidate was running for. Instead, the canvassers decided to nullify all of the declarations, nominations and endorsements for each candidate and reopen the declaration period with amended forms to ensure the process was fair. The Board of Elections questioned whether the local board had the authority to do that.

The situation was “uncharted territory,” with no explicit legal statutes to govern the board’s actions, said Timothy A. Williamson, town solicitor and James Williamson’s brother.

Candidates were given until July 14 to refile their declarations, and the local Democratic Party met that night to reendorse its candidates. The final vote endorsed Pettinicchio for the two-year seat, and Williamson and Vanasse for the four-year seats. Bradley filed his appeal two days later.

At yesterday’s hearing, sprinkled through the audience were state Sen. Stephen D. Alves, School Committee candidates Lynn Ponte and Vanasse, and local Republican committee officials Judy Orson and David Cerullo.

Solicitor Williamson, joined at the table by canvass board chairwoman Nancy Parente and board member Robert E. DiCarlo, asked the board to dismiss the appeal, arguing that if it reversed the decision, it could potentially force a special primary and otherwise wreak havoc on the elections timetable.

Elections Board lawyer Robert A. Marcaccio cited another case, saying that after the state-imposed deadline, a political party’s power to endorse “vanishes.” In this case, the state’s deadline was on the day after the original declaration deadline. However, Williamson argued, the Secretary of State was aware of what was happening and reissued the necessary paperwork, in essence, approving the action.

In denying the appeal, the board upheld the committee’s second round of endorsements that chose Vanasse over Bradley.

Williamson said he was pleased with the outcome.

“The ruling was based on what we know to be the law and in light of the fair and equitable treatment received by all candidates from the Board of Canvassers,” Williamson said. “The Board of Elections ruling is just and legal and a good ruling because it’s based on fact, not rhetoric or opinion.”

During the hearing, Bradley took a veiled shot at Vanasse, while petitioning the board to reverse the decision.

“I have no understanding as to why the objection to my previously accepted filing was made by a candidate for School Committee and his cohorts,” Bradley told the board. “I can only guess that it is the result of some petty objection to my candidacy and my involvement in town politics or possibly on the basis that I’m “too old” to be a serious candidate.”

After the hearing, Vanasse dismissed Bradley’s claims that he conspired to strip him of the endorsement as one man’s opinion.

“It’s unfortunate the original forms weren’t correct and the whole process needed to be done over again,” Vanasse said, but everything was done the same to all candidates. … I’m looking forward to moving ahead and starting my campaign.”

Bradley, a former member of the East Greenwich Town Council and School Committee, said he has his work cut out for him now.

As the unendorsed candidate, he said, it will be difficult to win the Sept. 9 primary, though he will do his best to try. Over the coming weeks, he said, he will reach out to voters, continue to attend meetings and get as much information on the Caruolo lawsuit pending against the town as he can.

“I’m not discouraged,” he said. “I believe I have a higher purpose because I’m not in it for myself. … I’m going to lift up as many leaves as I can between now and Sept. 9.”

tbuford@projo.com