The schedule for the Joint Committee on Election Laws is set for holding a hearing for Senate Bill #2116, the bill that is the result of our City Council majority’s vote to cancel the primary no matter what final number of candidates we have. This will happen August 12th, at the State House in Room A1 at 1:00 PM.
I encourage people to consider testifying at the hearing about how this will negatively affect Lowell’s elections. Especially great would be if some of our challenger candidates did so.
If you can’t get down to Beacon Hill to testify, please consider sending letters to the joint chairs of the committee: Senator Thomas P. Kennedy, State House, Room 109-E, Boston, MA 02133 (email or (617) 722-1200) or Representative Michael J. Moran, State House, Room 443, State House, Boston, MA 02133 (email or (617) 722-2460). A list of the other members of the joint committee are here. It includes our own Rep. Golden, who has expressed enthusiasm for canceling our primary. If we do not have a strong citizen opposition and turnout, the committee will likely vote in whatever manner Golden wants, since this is a local matter. If this comes out of committee, it will get passed, is my understanding. Then it is up to the Governor to veto or sign. If you haven’t expressed your thoughts to Governor Patrick you can send a letter to the Office of the Governor, Room 280, Boston, MA 02133 or email his office here (scroll down).
Some of the salient points:
- The last time we were given a waiver, we were told not to ask for one again, but go the charter change route. And yet, here we are again asking for another waiver.
- The circumstances of this waiver request are very different. Last time, we were past the deadline for filing candidate papers, we knew we only had 19 candidates, and one for sure was an unserious candidate (in jail). This time, it appears we have more than 22 or 23 of them, and this vote by the Council was taken before we know that number for certain.
- The language of the request by the city council says that we’re canceling the primary regardless of the number of candidates who are in the race. Think about that for a moment. We could have 50 candidates as of next week, and no method for narrowing them down.
- The voters have not had their say as to whether or not we want a primary in circumstances like these. The City Council constantly bypasses our democratic right every time they ask for this.
- There are a number of stated advantages for incumbents in not having a primary: diluting the anyone-but-incumbent vote (splitting it among 20 instead of 9); the non-randomizing of the names and the listing of incumbents first on the ballot in the general; the advantage in a primary for challengers of getting your active base of voters to show up and make a difference in your placement, favoring strong grassroots candidates; and finally, the publicity that can be had for a challenger who does well, and the more focused coverage that is generated by narrowing down of candidates for the general election.
