Confusion persists even after the election as to the location of the finish line.  Some (including me and the Lowell Sun) have said that the measure needed an overall turnout of one-third of the city’s registered voters plus a majority of that one-third voting in favor.  It seems that the threshold is much higher. 

Massachusetts General Laws chapter 43, section 40 (last sentence) governs.  It says “A proposed measure under this section shall become effective if it shall be approved by registered voters of the city equal in number to one third of the whole number thereof and also by a majority of the voters voting on such measure.”  To me, that means the referendum must receive yes votes that total or exceed one-third of the city’s registered voters plus the number voting yes must also be a majority of those voting.  That means the referendum would have required a minimum of 17403 yes votes to pass.  Given the turnout in recent city elections (approximately 12500), that minimum for success number seems awfully high, but if you remember that we’re talking about changing the way we run elections, you should need the support of a significant chunk of the electorate to impose such a major change.

So what will happen now?  I actually have a theory that’s on point:  History shows that efforts to change the city’s charter are more indicative of dissatisfaction with those then in office than they are of discontent with the system of government.  Because elections that include charter change questions have resulted in major changes to the makeup of the city council, the change in the council addresses the concerns motivating the charter change effort and the charter change effort quietly fades away. 

In 1969, voters overwhelmingly elected a charter commission that was to study the city’s charter and make recommendations on how to change it.  In that same election, five new councilors were elected (Brendan Fleming, Phil Shea, Paul Tsongas, John Mahoney and Leo Farley).  They joined re-elected incumbents Ellen Sampson, Richard Howe Sr, Armand LeMay and Samuel Pollard.  During that term, that council hired Lowell’s first “professional” city manager, the former city manager of Cambridge, Jim Sullivan (the same Jim Sullivan who often seeks to educate us on municipal finance and choice voting).  At the next election, the charter commission proposed that a strong mayor system be adopted and the voters overwhelmingly defeated the proposal.  

In 1993, voters supported non-binding referendums that would have (1) eliminated the present Plan E form of government; (2) imposed term limits on councilors; and (3) replaced the appointed city manager with an elected mayor.  In that same election, six new councilors were elected (Laurie Machado, Steve Gendron, Matt Donahue, Mike Geary, Grady Mulligan and Larry Martin) and the course of city government changed dramatically.  That drained away the motivation to alter the system of government.

In 2009, a referendum to switch to a “choice voting system” appeared on the ballot.  Although it did not gain a majority, it did not lose by the margin many had predicted (6841 no to 5174 yes).  In the same election, three new councilors (Franky Descoteaux, Joe Mendonca and Patrick Murphy) were elected.  While they’ve yet to take office, the positions they espoused during the campaign on critical issues differed greatly from the positions taken by the three councilors they will replace.  With the council changing direction, the impetus to change the charter should be greatly reduced.

I do have a suspicion – and I emphasize that I don’t yet have any factual basis for this – that we will soon see another attempt to change the city’s charter only this time it will not be in the form of a referendum but will be pursued judicially.  Hopefully I’m wrong about that, but we’ll see.