Town Has Not Responded To Appeal Filed On Wrongfully Disqualified Signatures Charge

As of May 2, the Town of Amherst, its lawyers, and the Board of Registrars have failed to reply to, or set a hearing date for, an appeal and objection to the Town Clerk’s decision not to certify numerous verifiable signatures on a Voter Veto petition submitted on April 20. The appeal was filed on April 23.  The Town Clerk disqualified more than one in five of the 1088 signatures collected.  Of the 244 signers whose signatures were disqualified, 51 submitted affidavits stating that they had signed using their regular signature and long-time address, and asking for their signatures to be certified.  That group includes long-time Amherst residents and regular voters including Town  employees, elected officials, and professors at UMass and local colleges.

“We are increasingly alarmed by the lack of response from Town officials to our lawful appeal and request for a hearing,” stated lead petitioner organizer Carol Gray. “The Massachusetts General Laws require that such hearings be held within 14 days of such an appeal being filed, and the clock is ticking with 9 days already past.”

The Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office told the petitioners that under the provisions of Section 7 of Chapter 55B, a hearing would be held.

“The Town of Amherst is under a legal obligation to conduct a hearing,” stated petitioner Marla Jamate. “The Voter Veto Petition provision of the Amherst Home Rule Charter is meaningless without the due process rights guaranteed under state law.”

The petitioners submitted 1,088 signatures to the Town on April 20, seeking a referendum on the  City Council’s plan to borrow over $35 million to renovate and expand the Jones Library. On April 21, the  Board of Registrars, with one member absent, held a three-minute meeting during which it voted  to authorize the Town Clerk’s Office to certify petition signatures on its behalf. The Town Clerk’s Office announced later that day that only 842 signatures could be certified, and maintained that the petitioners were 22 signatures short of the 864 the Town has said is required to trigger a  referendum under the Amherst Home Rule Charter.

“We were very surprised by many of the disqualifications,” Jamate said. “They include well-known residents who have lived in their homes and been registered voters in Amherst for many years, including former Amherst elected officials and employees, and well-known scholars at UMass and the colleges.”

Petitioner Rita K. Burke, who is a retired Town employee, said she was disqualified although she  is a registered voter who has lived at her same address for decades. “I wrote in the address that I have lived at for about 37 years, and signed my name the way I always do. I am sure that I was disqualified in error,” she said.

Judge Denies Petition For Injunction But Leaves Other Paths For Redress Open
On April 30, Judge John Agostini of the Hampshire County Superior Court denied the plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction seeking accommodations provided previously for other petitioners due to COVID-19. In a 2020 Supreme Judicial Court case, called Goldstein v. Secretary of State, the SJC provided  three accommodations to petitioners due to the pandemic: a 50% reduction in the number of signatures required; use of electronic signatures; and an extension of time for gathering  signatures. Judge Agostini denied petitioners all such accommodations, finding that the  COVID-19 context is not as grave now as it was last year.

Agostini wrote that his order “is not a final determination on the merits” of the petitioners’ claims, but is rather “an initial evaluation of the dispute.” The judge stated that given the nature of the issues and mix of executive, legislative and judicial concerns, “immediate review by the appellate courts” could be warranted.

Petitioners disagree with the denial of any immediate form of accommodation. They provided the Court  with  more than a half dozen sworn affidavits about the numerous ways that COVID-19 “significantly interfered with” signature collection. Petitioners cited the continued closure of  gathering places including Town Hall, the Town libraries, and large event venues such as the UMass Mullins Center. Currently, all Town meetings are held remotely, and the affidavits attest  to repeated challenges in canvassing door-to-door.

The problem of signature collection during COVID has also arisen in Boston, where the City Council sent a letter to state officials on April 20, stating that mayoral and council candidates can’t campaign for office “in a manner consistent with public health.” The Boston City Council is seeking changes to state laws requiring that they collect large numbers of in-person signatures, and asks Secretary of State William Galvin, and the House and Senate Joint Committee on Election Laws, to consider electronic signatures and reduced collection requirements.

Town Plans To Move Forward With Library Borrowing
According to reporting in today’s (5/3) Daily Hampshire Gazette, The Town has interpreted Judge Agostini’s decision as a green light to move forward with the Jones renovation.  Town Manager Paul Bockelman said “the Judge’s decision allows him (Bockelman) to sign contracts with the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners so that the Town can begin receiving payments from the $13.87 million state grant…. In an affidavit filed with the court, Bockelman wrote that a delay in signing this contract could result in higher costs for the building project if the first $2.77 million payment doesn’t come in on time.”  Bockelman also indicated that the Town will now move forward with appointing a building committee to oversee the process of the Jones expansion and renovation.

An Update on The Voter Veto petition is listed as an item on tonight’s  (5/3) Town Council Agenda.

For previous Indy reporting on the Voter Veto petition look here, here ,and here.

For previous commentary opposing the voter veto petition look here and here.