PROVIDENCE — Appeals to remove East Providence candidates Brian Coogan and Shannon Barbosa from the upcoming ballot were thrown out by the state Board of Elections yesterday.

The same end result occurred when the challenges — filed last month by city Democratic Committee chairman Nuno A. Branco — were heard by the East Providence Canvassing Authority a few weeks ago.

Branco questioned the validity of sworn affidavits filed by Coogan and Barbosa — who are seeking to represent Ward 2 for the City Council and School Committee, respectively — that said every resident who signed their nomination papers were done in the candidate’s “presence.”

“I’ve worked on several campaigns,” Branco testified in Coogan’s hearing. “… and I find it almost near impossible for one person to get every signature in such a short time.”

Coogan, who is a former state representative, testified he collected the majority and “more than 300” of the signatures on his nomination papers. He said he knew of only 14 signatures that a friend, Victor Silva, got for him. Barbosa, a newcomer vying for office, said she collected all but one of the sets of nomination papers she turned in.

City Charter states candidates need 200 signatures to qualify, and the authority already agreed Coogan and Barbosa have satisfied that requirement.

Yet Branco’s lawyer, Frederic A. Marzilli, said two previous Rhode Island Supreme Court rulings (particularly one in 1997) state the election law regarding nomination papers and affidavits is a “substantive statute” that must be followed to the letter rather than just in the spirit of the regulation.

The definition of “in my presence” was the crux of the debate at yesterday’s hearings. Both Coogan and Barbosa believed supervising their husband, wife or other family members collect signatures across the street or next door from them were in their presence. They also testified the streets in East Providence are “very narrow.”

“It [the language in the affidavit] doesn’t say anything about supervise, does it,” Marzilli asked Coogan.

Coogan replied, “No, it doesn’t, but that’s how I interpreted it.”

In answering a similar question, Barbosa said, “I trust my husband with my children, so I feel I can say I witnessed them…. I saw [the voters] sign, but I didn’t see them up close and personal. I witnessed the act of signing.”

Later, she also replied she didn’t “physically watch the pen move across the paper.”

The two also testified separately that the women working in the city’s canvassing office gave them incomplete or inaccurate information. Marzilli said regardless of the advice given, the candidates should see the person sign their name and their name only and not, for example, “Mickey Mouse” or another candidate.

He said although it is “harsh,” the Supreme Court rulings state all nomination papers in question should be thrown out and therefore, both would not have enough signatures to proceed and be placed on the ballot.

Coogan’s lawyers, Kevin J. Bristow and former House Speaker John B. Harwood, said Marzilli did not present “clear and convincing” evidence or witnesses to meet his burden of proof. Harwood also said the presumption is the nomination papers are “valid unless someone testifies differently.”

“To say Mickey Mouse could have signed it, boy, that’s a stretch,” Barbosa’s lawyer, Robert E. Craven, said in his closing argument. “… Especially since there isn’t any evidence [to the contrary]. These are real people and quite frankly, these are voters.”

Before the state board ruled, Harwood and Bristow also argued the board should consider Branco’s motives for challenging, and then appealing. Although East Providence’s local races are nonpartisan, the lawyers believe the challenges were “politically motivated” because Coogan is running against incumbent Bryan Silva, who is Democrat.

Said Harwood, “If the politics of the world want to get in here, do it at the ballot box and not when there are over 300 [certified] signatures.”

During the two deliberations, board Commissioner Florence G. Gormley said the candidates should remain on the ballot because Marzilli did not present anyone who said they signed these candidates’ nomination papers while Barbosa and Coogan weren’t around. Her motion was approved 3 to 1 in both hearings, with chairman John A. Daluz and Martin E. Joyce Jr. agreeing with Gormley.

Commissioner Richard H. Pierce was the lone dissenter. In Barbosa’s hearing, he said he was “regretfully” voting against it because she was “ill advised” of the law. Pierce said she now knows the correct procedure for future bids of office.

When asked if there are plans to appeal further, Branco said, “I am keeping my options open.”

Marzilli said the last step could be a request to be heard by the state Supreme Court. Yet he also said it is a complicated process and the court could deny hearing such an appeal.

apina@projo.com