Left In Lowell

Tonight’s City Council agenda doesn’t really have too much controversy, to be honest, which I guess is a good thing. A famous Chinese curse is “may you live in interesting times” and if things aren’t all that interesting, they’re probably going pretty well, or at least as well as they can.

However, there is one motion by a city councilor to point out:

20. C. Kazanjian-Req. Council initiate action for Charter Change as it relates to number of candidates required for Primary Elections.

Those who listened to WCAP yesterday afternoon (I was not one of them, so this is hearsay) heard Councilor Kazanjian taking about his motion. His expressed point of view isn’t unfamiliar to observers of past city council elections: it costs too much to have a primary when you’re only just above the 18+1 needed to trigger a primary election.

Now, a primary does a couple of things. It pares down the candidates for the general election down to 18, and it also rearranges the names on the list - otherwise, the general election ballot shows the incumbents seeking reelection first, then all the challengers.

There are arguments that this severely disadvantages challengers, since the incumbents’ names are not only familiar to voters from their incumbency, but also end up first on the list of candidates. However, a primary plus general election is costly (and I don’t refer to the taxpayers, but to the candidates), and some say that is the bigger disadvantage for challengers. (Though I would make the argument that it gives the opportunity for the challenger to hone their campaign, and get out in front earlier than they might otherwise, as challengers certainly do not get the attention incumbents can get by virtue of being front of the cameras every (other) week and in the papers. A challenger that places well in the primary suddenly has credibility as a viable candidate and that can attract money and supporters and volunteers.)

Mass.gov explains the process for changing city charters thusly (bold mine):

Under the Home Rule Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution (Amendment Article 89) and the Home Rule Procedures Act (MGL Ch. 43B), cities and towns can form a charter commission to adopt a new charter; entirely revise an existing charter, or amend selected charter provisions.  As an option to the Home Rule Charter process under Ch. 43B, communities can also adopt, revise or amend a charter by a special act of the State Legislature with approval by the Governor (See Special Acts ).

Charter Commissions are created in these circumstances (bold mine):

Chapter 43B: Section 4. Order of governing body for submission of question of adoption or revision of charter; nomination and election of charter commission

Section 4. Within thirty days of receipt of certification by the board of registrars of voters that a petition contains sufficient valid signatures, the city council or board of selectmen shall by order provide for submitting the question of adopting or revising a charter to the voters of the city or town, and for the election of a charter commission, at the first regular city election, or at the first annual or biennial town meeting for the election of town officers, held on or after the sixtieth day following the adoption of the order. Said order shall also provide for the nomination of charter commission members, who shall be nominated in accordance with this chapter. Said order shall not require the concurrence of the mayor in a city and shall not be subject to referendum. If an order of the city council or board of selectmen under this section has not been adopted within the thirty days specified above, the question of adopting or revising a charter shall be submitted to the voters and charter commission members shall be elected at the first regular city election, or at the first annual or biennial town meeting for the election of town officers, held on or after the ninetieth day after receipt by the city council or board of selectmen of certification provided for in the first sentence of this section.

Of the two routes (Charter Commission, or special act of the legislature) which do you think Mr. Kazanjian would want to go?

The fact is, that it appears from the wording the motion that the Councilor is looking to push the number up from 18+1 to something higher, so that a primary isn’t triggered just to “knock off one person.” However, if we go this route, and make the threshold say, 20+1, what happens when we have 21 candidates, and once again are facing paying for a primary just to knock off one person? Any cutoff is, ultimately, arbitrary.

For my part, I’m not looking at the cost of running an election in order to judge whether a primary should be held. Democracy is one of our most sacred trusts with one another and is worth every penny to serve the public good. And the money to run an election is a drop in the bucket of the city’s budget. How I would judge such a change in our charter is, does it serve democracy? In this case it’s not completely clear, since there are advantages and disadvantages to challengers either way, though I lean towards any process that loosens incumbents’ chokehold on government. And, I would rather err on the side of elections, rather than saving pennies. For want of a nail…as the proverb goes.

Besides, this is being proposed by the same guy who thought culling our democracy in the form of cutting out half our city council meetings in a year was a good idea. [Clarification - what I meant was that he was in favor of this proposal, which of course was put forward by C. Lenzi. -Lynne]

Edit: Referring to my notes, I should add that there is currently a process to forgo a primary if its triggered by the 18+1 rule - a special overrule by the legislature and signed by the Governor, very probably the same process under which a charter change can be effected by the legislature. However, as someone I talked about this mentioned, this “Charter change” route is likely a response to the last-minute overrule the legislature was asked to do last time ’round, which, I have been told, made a certain senior member of our state delegation a bit disgruntled. Still, I do not think this is a good enough excuse for a change in our charter that does not go through the voters.