By JIM BARON

PROVIDENCE — The Rhode Island Republican Party plans to go back to the state Supreme Court today, looking to get five candidates on the November ballot, including challengers in Senate districts in Pawtucket and West Warwick.

The Republican quintet was appointed by party chairman Giovanni Cicione under a seldom-used provision of the election law that allows party chairman to appoint candidates in districts where no members of the party filed to run, provided the appointments are made within 24 hours of the filing deadline.
Cicione made the appointments in time, but he filed them with the secretary of state’s office, instead of at the local boards of canvassers, where candidates would have made their declarations.
As a result, the Pawtucket Board of Canvassers declined to recognize the candidacy of Lammis Vargis of 1 Cato Ave., Pawtucket in Senate District 15 against incumbent Democrat John F. McBurney III; in West Warwick, the appointment of John J. Clarke of 53 Crossland Road to run against Democratic incumbent Stephen Alves in Senate District 9 is still under review, and in Providence the board of canvassers rejected the nomination of Damien J. Baldino in Representative District 13, Elaina K. Goldstein in Senate District 3 and Kofua Z. Kulah Sr. in Senate District 5.
The law says candidates themselves must file at their local board of canvassers, but it is silent on where party chairmen should submit their supplemental appointments. In a memo filed with the complaint, Cicione argued that since the law does not require a party chairman to file with the local board of canvassers of each candidate he or she appoints, “to manufacture such a requirement without any basis in statute is beyond the authority of a board of canvassers, is unsupported by the plain language of the statute and would violate public policy and constitutional consideration set forth clearly by this court.”
The Republicans made a complaint to the court earlier this month, but was told it would first have to appeal the decisions of the local boards to the state Board of Elections. The elections board rejected the GOP appeal, which sought to have nomination papers issued to the candidates so they could collect the required number of signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Now Cicione and the Republicans are seeking an “expedited review” of their request that the court order the local boards or the secretary of state to issue nomination papers and grant the candidates the same 10-day period to gather signatures that other candidates had.
It was not clear on Monday how the court would proceed with the Republicans’ complaint or when.
Cicione told The Times he was told by court officials when he first appealed to the court July 1 that it would be inclined to entertain an expedited complaint. Asked when he expects to have a decision one way or the other, Cicione said, “hopefully this week; I don’t see the need for the court to hold it up beyond that.
“I just want whatever would give me a decision most quickly at this point,” Cicione said. “I need to get these candidates out campaigning. They have already been harmed by the delays that have been imposed. I want to minimize the harm by getting them into court quickly and out campaigning.”
 Democratic Party Chairman William Lynch said once the Republicans file their papers with the court, “I expect we would respond in opposition.”
The court action is not likely to be a distraction for the Democratic candidates, Lynch said, because, “each candidate in those contested areas is already doing things as if they have an opponent.
“If you are looking to run for an office in which you make laws for people to follow, the least you can do is follow the law on how you are supposed to run for that office,” Lynch said. “I don’t think that is asking too much.”
Lynch said he is “confident that the court will make the right decision” and the party will abide by whatever that decision is.
Cicione said where the law is silent, the court has a record of ruling on the side of allowing access to the ballot. He said that in a similar 1995 case the court ruled that in such circumstances, “the principal concern was not the potentially disenfranchised candidate, but the voters who should ‘if at all possible have a choice among candidates endorsed by the major political parties.”
To disenfranchise such voters, Cicione quoted the high court as saying, “would require the clearest and most specific expression of intent on the part of the legislature and would raise serious constitutional issues.”