Town Disqualifies More Than One In Five Signatures On Library Borrowing Petition. Voter Rights Case Pending In Hampshire Superior Court
Photo:Flckr.com
Source: Marla Jamate
A group of Amherst residents who are petitioning the Amherst Town Council in order to have an April 5 vote on borrowing for the Jones Library expansion reconsidered, submitted 1,088 signatures to the Town Clerk’s office on Tuesday, April 20.
The “Voter Veto” is a provision of Amherst’s Town Charter (Section 8.4) that has not previously been attempted. If 5% of Amherst‘s registered voters sign a petition to overturn a Town Council vote within two weeks of that vote, the Town Council must reconsider its vote at its next regular Town Council meeting. And, if the vote on that measure is not repealed, the Town Council must provide for the submission of the question of whether Amherst should approve the matter for a determination by the voters either at a special election or at the next regular Town election, with the date to be determined by the Town Council. Town officials have stated that 864 verifiable signatures are necessary to implement the voter veto.
The Town announced Wednesday that it had verified 842 of the 1,088 signatures which the petitioners submitted, and maintained that the petition effort had failed. However, petitioners question the signature threshold set by Town officials, along with the Town’s conclusions regarding verifiable signatures. The petitioners will seek review of all documents and related procedures.
“The Town Clerk’s office rejected more than 1 in 5 of the signatures we submitted,” stated Carol Gray, lead petition organizer. “We will be investigating the process by which the Town disqualified signatures, and will examine every signature that was disqualified.”
“The speed with which this certification occurred, in less than 24 hours, raises concerns about the degree to which efforts were made to determine voter intent. We are committed to ensuring that every voter’s voice is heard in Amherst,” Gray said.
The Town’s calculation of 864 required verifiable signatures relied on data from the Town’s 2019 election, which had 17,269 eligible voters. In the more recent Nov. 3, 2020 election, total eligible voters in Amherst numbered 16,572. Five percent of those is 828.6, a number which the petitioners, by the Town’s own count, surpassed.
During the 14 days for submitting signatures set by the Charter, Town officials repeatedly declined to grant the petitioners the right to use electronic signatures, although this accommodation was granted previously in Amherst during the COVID-19 pandemic to a group which sought an Open Meeting of the Residents.
“We have a high level of confidence in the volunteers who canvassed for this petition, despite the additional burdens imposed on them by the COVID-19 pandemic and the lack of any accommodations from the Town,” stated petitioner Marla Jamate. “We want to assure that all registered voters who expressed a wish for a referendum via the petitions are counted.”
Citing an undue hardship imposed on petitioners by the Town’s denial of COVID-19 accommodations, the petitioners including former Jones Library trustees Molly Turner, Pat Holland, Carol Gray and others filed an Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in Hampshire Superior Court on Friday, April 16. The group seeks the right to use the signature-gathering measures during COVID that were granted by the Supreme Judicial Court last year in a case called Goldstein v. Secretary of State (484 Mass 516 (2020)). In that case, the SJC gave election-candidate plaintiffs the right to collect signatures electronically, plus an extension of filing deadlines. The SJC order also reduced the number of petition signatures required by 50%.
The Amherst petitioners’ Emergency Motion seeks an extension of their petitioning deadline by one week, the use of electronic signatures, and reduction of the signatures required.
The case underscores a broader need to protect the ability of citizens to petition their government effectively during COVID-19.
A hearing is set for April 28.
Why isn’t there some balance to this coverage. What do the Library Trustees say about this? Why no interview with a Town Councilor or Town Manager? Why not an attempt to interview or get a quote from someone who is on favor of the project? This seems much more like an opinion piece rather than news reporting.
I don ‘t see anything in this article that isn’t a fact or simply a statement by one of the organizers of the petition. So, I don’t see it as an opinion piece. I am interested in hearing what the Town Manager and Town Councilors and others have to say on this question and definitely want to learn more as events unfold. Perhaps the next Indy article will provide this. The MassLive.com and Gazette coverage is much like this piece, without any quotes from the town officials.
Regardless (“press” resources are available to anyone), the “certified” number,
(so far) representing voters from every area of town, seems to speak at a fairly audible level that there are many (four times the number reported of those who have written or spoken up in favor of the project) who question the current plan and process.
Again, why no attempt to interview or get a quote from those who support the library project? It would also be great to hear from town officials. That would make this a news report.
Also, why didn’t the reporter do some further digging to find out whether the percentage of signatories was out of whack with other petition drives?
And what about people who felt they were mislead by the canvassers?
If the Indy wants to live up to it’s masthead, then it’s reporting should be both critical and independent.
Has the list of “disqualified” signatures been released?
What — if any — is the procedure for “re-qualifying” a signature?
Does any a “qualified” person who was “disqualified” — whether by omission or commission — by the Town Clerk have standing to bring further action for disenfranchisement (not only in Massachusetts courts, but under federal voting rights laws)?
–
The Indy is an all volunteer, grassroots, citizen effort. I do not see the absence of more information as an attempt to suppress or distort. I welcome the representation of all views. It is the responsibility of us, the readers, the citizens, members of the community, to contribute to the collective dialogue. The Indy is responsive and fully inclusive. I certainly welcome the opportunity to read about all views on any issue.
As to Mr. Blumenfeld’s comments above, opinions about the Jones Library’s proposed demolition/expansion project are irrelevant here. Either Town Hall acted properly in disqualifying a given Petition signature, or it did not. Amherst has a Board of Registrars. It can and presumably will address this issue, signature by signature.
Most if not all of those gathering signatures are well-experienced at this customary aspect of Amherst civic life. Any need for the writer to “find out whether the percentage of signatories was out of whack with other petition drives” is nil. The sole question is the extent to which the Town acted properly or not in THIS petition drive.
As I understand it, the Voter Veto Petition will succeed if the Town improperly disqualified at least 22 of the 200 or so signatures that it tossed. Any Town official with something to say about this is free to do so below.
“Does any a “qualified” person who was “disqualified” — whether by omission or commission — by the Town Clerk have standing to bring further action for disenfranchisement (not only in Massachusetts courts, but under federal voting rights laws)?”
I don’t know the answer(s), Rob. But this is an apt question indeed.
Just because the Indy is a volunteer, grassroots effort doesn’t mean that you cannot strive to provide as much information and balance about an issue in a story that is categorized under the ‘News’ tag. There is no doubt as to the opinion of the writer(s) of this article. Even the sole ‘source’ of this article is later identified as a petitioner, and the author is identified as ‘Amherst Indy’ which strikes me more as an editorial post, than a reporting post. There’s no mention (unlike the Gazette) of how or why the town calculated the number of signatures needed (spelled out in the Charter) and the sole quotes are from petitioners, who have clear opinions. I appreciate the contribution that the Indy brings to town conversations, but if the Indy is going to operate as a ‘news’ organization, I think you can do better.
Articles that are derived from.press releases are posted under the Indy byline and do not reflect Indy endorsement or authorship. That heading is reserved for the posting of press releases that we receive from organizations throughout the region. You will note that articles posted with an Amherst Indy byline always list the source of the information – that is, the source that provided us with the press release. In the case of the article in question, we cited a press release issued by the petitioners and because the petitioners do not represent a formal organization, but rather and ad hoc group of residents, and because we have a requirement that the source of all press releases must be listed (something neither the Gazette nor the Bulletin do), we accurately listed one of the authors of the press release as the source. From our perspective we are attempting to be as transparent as possible. As for interviewing broadly, we try to do our best, but depending on the timing, and the availability of volunteer “staff”, we often have to rely on the information that is provided to us by sources issuing press releases. While we may not always be able to provide the same kind of comprehensive coverage as our area’s commercial outlets, we believe that our ability to cover stories that fly under the radar of our professional colleagues and our tendency to provide an alternative perspective from those outlets, is indeed a public service. I also note that Town officials do not always respond to our inquiries as consistently as they do to inquiries from the Gazette.
Art Keene
Managing Editor
Thank you Art. As I mentioned, I appreciate the perspective that the Indy brings, and appreciate the volunteer work that goes into covering local news. Good local journalism is important.
But I think you have made my point—if this article is a press release, then it really should be identified as such, and not ‘news’. Press releases are specifically written by organizations to get attention for their cause, and are therefore going to be biased. It is not at all clear that this article is a press release, and publishing it under the Indy byline does certainly suggest endorsement. I’d love you to make that more clear. Thanks for your work.
So this means you’re going to start talking about widespread voter suppression efforts throughought the United States meant to deprive Black people the vote, Jim Crow-style, right? Or do you really think this is the most important voter rights issue right now? There’s local and then there’s myopic.
Again, the Indy’s story is quite similar to the reporting in the Gazette’s and MassLive — both did not get in person quotes from town officials that communicated it seems by emails. So if people want to criticize the Indy here, I suggest they also send the same criticism to these news groups with their paid reporters. Otherwise the criticism seems a bit selective and sour.
I disagree with you, Janet. It’s true that the Gazette’s last few articles have only included quotes from petitioners. But they also included context that the Indy’s articles did not. If you read this article/press release in the Indy, you might think that the Town just arbitrarily came up with the number of signatures required (instead of it being determined by the Charter). The last article about the petition refers to the town borrowing $35 million dollars for the library, without making any mention of the $16 million being funded by the state nor the millions of dollars being contributed by the Friends of the Jones Library. (I am not arguing here about what people think about accepting the state aid nor whether they think the Friends will be able to meet their fundraising goals – simply that the press releases that the Indy has published about the petition are leaving out significant context) If the Indy wants to publish press releases without context because they feel that it is important to put that information out that is their right, but I’d like to see them categorized as press releases or opinion, rather than news.
So, Janet McGowan, are you actually arguing that it is ok to have bad local coverage if it is universally bad?
I believe MassLive/Republican actually did make corrections to their story about the voter petition in response to citizen input.
Art Keene’s clarification was helpful and I thank him for that. I would like to recommend that the differentiation between a piece reported by an Indy reporter/source versus reprinting of a press release be made much clearer in the future.