What are we voting on: ballot questions
There are 3 ballot questions on the Somerville 2025 ballot:
- City charter
- Mayor term length
- Palestine solidarity question
Question 1: City charter - Somerville’s city charter was last updated in 1899. As such there is a lot of outdated language and sections that have been overridden by state law.
The charter reform on the ballot is a long-overdue update to Somerville's core governing document. Moving beyond the frustrations of the multi-year process, a "yes" vote is a practical choice to replace our outdated, patchwork charter with a clear and modern framework. This new version closes legal loopholes, enhances financial oversight, and improves governmental clarity. It is a definitive improvement that we should adopt. It is a necessary and durable step forward that provides a much stronger foundation for our city's future.
You can read a more in-depth analysis on why you should vote yes, written by Somerville’s very own politico Chris Dwan here. You can also see a side-by-side comparison of the current charter and the proposed charter here. I encourage you to vote Yes on 1.
Question 2: Mayoral term length from 2 years to 4 years - currently the Mayor serves a 2 year long term and is the same as many (but not all) other elected positions including Somerville city councilor, school committee, MA state legislators, and US Congress. Some executive positions have longer terms than legislative positions, including MA Governor, Boston Mayor, and US President, which are 4-year terms. Our current Mayor sought to have this changed and so it is up to you the voters to decide.
Question 3: Palestine solidarity question - this is a non-binding public opinion advisory question, or more simply put: an opportunity for you to express your opinion on the following:
“Shall the Mayor of Somerville and all Somerville elected leaders be instructed to end all current city business and prohibit future city investments and contracts with companies as long as such companies engage in business that sustains Israel's apartheid, genocide, and illegal occupation of Palestine?”
The group opposed to this question, Somerville United Against Discrimination (SUAD), have expended a great deal of time and resources to stop you from expressing your vote and opinion on this question. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I believe trying to stop you from casting your vote to express your will and your opinion is anti-democratic.
Here are where things stand now. First SUAD filed an objection to remove Question 3 for procedural reasons, that certified signatures should be tossed on the basis of when they were certified. This objection was struck down 3-0 by the Somerville Election Commission and as such Question 3 is printed on your ballot.
Now SUAD is suing the City of Somerville and the Somerville Election Commission. I attended the court hearing to hear the arguments firsthand. Their attorney asked the judge to instruct the City of Somerville to do one or more of the following: a) not tally question 3, b) reprint the ballot without Question 3, or c) add an additional page with a 150 word statement written by the opponents because “voters may not understand what this [question] is about.” according to their attorney.
The City Solicitor stated clearly that it is not the role of the city to determine the merits of what is on the ballot and that these actions not only jeopardize the election, it jeopardizes the will and desire of the City Council and the voters to be heard on this question.
I could not agree more with the City Solicitor on this. There is unequivocally nothing illegal about voters expressing their will and opinion on the immense atrocities committed by Israel.
I’m voting Yes on 3 because it is our moral responsibility to speak out and take action on the government’s role in funding apartheid and genocide.
With respect to what concrete policy will be taken up by the Somerville City Council, Mayor, or State Legislature, we won’t know details until elected officials deliberate on it.
If the question passes resoundingly, I would support divestment of Somerville pensions similar to the bill I filed on divesting MA pensions from Israel. This is very similar to how Massachusetts has divested from South Africa, Iran, Sudan, and Northern Ireland in the past. Although in the past, boycotting contracts have faced more legal challenges, most recently with Burma, I believe it is worthwhile to revisit the issue because 25 states and 164 cities enacted boycott on South Africa in the 80’s, which calls the question, why is today’s context different?
