The stunning performance of Democratic candidates in the rest of the country in Tuesday’s midterm election has dominated the news. Still, there was also an election here in Massachusetts, so I’ll begin today’s newsletter with the results of the races beginning with our state legislators:

• State Senator
  • Vanna Howard (Dem) – 15,058 in Lowell; 27,422 in district
  • Sam Meas (Rep) – 4363 in Lowell; 12,435 in district
  • Joe Espinola (Unenrolled) – 2,612 in Lowell; 7072 in district
• State Representative – 16th Middlesex
  • Lorena Betts (Dem) – 4304 in Lowell; 7933 in district
  • Karla Miller (Rep) – 2020 in Lowell; 3693 in district
• State Representative – 17th Middlesex
  • John Drinkwater (Dem) – 7152 in Lowell; 8163 in district
  • No opponent
• State Representative (Dem) – 18th Middlesex
  • Tara Hong (Dem) – 5875
  • No opponent

Now back to the full ballot (showing major party candidates only):

• US Senate
  • Edward Markey (Dem) – 15,045 in Lowell; 1,632,326 (63%) statewide
  • John Deaton (Rep) – 5744 in Lowell; 826,552 (32%) statewide
• Governor & Lt Governor
  • Healey & Driscoll (Dem) – 15,019 in Lowell; 1,605,885 (62%) statewide
  • Minogue & Oliver (Rep) – 6249 in Lowell; 891,059 (34.5%) statewide
• Attorney General
  • Andrea Campbell (Dem) – 15,363 in Lowell; 1,674,279 (66%) statewide
  • Michael Walsh (Rep) – 6293 in Lowell; 877,110 (34%) statewide
• Secretary of State
  • William Galvin (Dem) – 16,774 in Lowell; 1,814,465 (71%) statewide
  • Anne Brensley (Rep) – 4906 in Lowell; 731,405 (29%) statewide
• Treasurer
  • Deborah Goldbert (Dem) – 15,229 in Lowell; 1,657,342 (66%) statewide
  • Elizabeth Dionne (Rep) – 6145 in Lowell; 856,022 (34%) statewide
• Auditor
  • Diana DiZoglio (Dem) – 17,599 in Lowell; 1,954,194 (84%) statewide
  • Al Ozonoff (Libertarian) – 2582 in Lowell; 376,706 (16%) statewide
• Representative in Congress
  • Lori Trahan (Dem) – 16,016 in Lowell; 167,849 (67%) districtwide
  • Gary Grossi (Rep) – 4856 in Lowell; 76,946 (31%) districtwide
• Governor’s Councillor (5th District)
  • Eunice Delice Zeigler (Dem) – 14,980 in Lowell; 196,222 (65%) districtwide
  • William Falcetano (Rep) – 5549 in Lowell; 108,060 (35%) districtwide
• District Attorney
  • Marian Ryan (Dem) – 17,647 in Lowell; x countywide
  • No opponent
• Register of Probate
  • Tara DeCristofaro (Dem) – 15,600 in Lowell; countywide TBD
  • Tara Martorella (Justice for All) – 3350 in Lowell; countywide TBD

Regional School Committee – Greater Lowell Regional School Committee candidates represent the city or town in which they reside but are elected district-wide. For this report, I only show the number of votes each candidate received in Lowell, not the entire district.

• Dracut
  • Matthew Seehan – 14,440 in Lowell
• Dunstable
  • No candidates
• Lowell (top two elected)
  • Ralph Hogan – 8818 in Lowell
  • Brady McCarron – 5694 in Lowell
  • Anthony Milisci – 3579 in Lowell
• Tyngsborough
  • Carol Chisolm – 12,149

Ballot Questions – There were nine questions on this year’s ballot. Below I’ve listed each by title with a short explanation followed by the winning response, the votes received in Lowell, and the statewide percentages:

Question 1 – Public Records – (make applicable to governor and legislature)

YES – 85.9% statewide; 17,549 votes in Lowell (85%)

NO – 14.1% statewide; 3154 votes in Lowell (15%)

Question 2 – Public Defenders Unionization – (allow or don’t allow to unionize)

              YES – 64.0% statewide; 14,440 votes in Lowell (71%)

              NO – 36.0% statewide; 6039 votes in Lowell (29%)

Question 3 – Combined Primary Elections – (all candidates from all parties run in a single primary with the top two advancing to the general election)

NO – 61.1% statewide; 12,681 votes in Lowell (58%)

YES – 38.9% statewide; 9382 votes in Lowell (42%)

Question 4 – Election Day Voter Registration – (allows registering to vote on day of election)

YES – 56.3% statewide; 13,996 votes in Lowell (64%)

NO – 43.7% statewide; 7920 votes in Lowell (36%)

Question 5 – Cap on State Revenue – (automatic rebates if tax collections exceed prior year per a formula)

NO – 52.0% statewide; 10,633 votes in Lowell (50.3%)

YES – 48.0% statewide; 10,524 votes in Lowell (49.7%)

Question 6 – Establish and Finance a “Nature for All Fund” – (existing taxes on recreational items devoted to nature conservation)

YES – 60.8% statewide; 14,169 votes in Lowell (65%)

NO – 39.2% statewide; 7659 votes in Lowell (35%)

Question 7 – Single family home minimum lot size – (single family home on 5000 square foot lots statewide)

TOO CLOSE TO CALL STATEWIDE

NO – 50.6% statewide; 8889 votes in Lowell (42%)

YES – 49.4% statewide; 12,470 votes in Lowell (58%)

Question 8 – Repeal legalization of marijuana – (YES would repeal marijuana legalization)

NO – 75.6% statewide; 16,003 votes in Lowell (74%)

YES – 24.4% statewide; 5563 votes in Lowell (26%)

Question 9 – Preserve the stricter gun control law passed by the legislature in 2024 – (yes retains the law; no repeals it)

YES – 67.1% statewide; 15,494 votes in Lowell (70%)

NO – 32.9% statewide; 6642 votes in Lowell (30%)

****

At Tuesday’s Lowell City Council meeting, the council unanimously authorized the city manager to enter into a purchase and sales agreement for the entire property at 276 Broadway which includes the Lowell Senior Center. I’ve previously written about the Senior Center, the controversy over the city’s lease of the property and the recent agreement on purchasing the property, so this vote was a bit anti-climactic. Here’s the document that formed the basis of the council’s vote.

****

Another matter that came before the council was the confirmation of a vote already taken by the council in executive session on October 6, 2026. The vote involved three things; all related to the Draper Labs development project in the Hamilton Canal District. Specifically, the vote included a Tax Increment Financing Agreement (TIF); the leasing of 100 parking spaces by Draper in the city’s Hamilton Canal District Parking Garage; and a Right of First Refusal by Draper on an adjacent lot now owned by the city. (The vote and the related agreements are on the city’s website).

When Mayor Erik Gitschier brought up this matter, Councilor Sean McDonough objected to the second reading of the vote which automatically delayed it to the next council meeting. After a brief exchange between Gitschier and McDonough which can be found at 11:56 of the video recording of this meeting, the council moved on to its next item of business.

McDonough cited Council Rule 27 as the procedural basis of this move. Here’s the text of that rule:

RULE 27 – STAGES OF LEGISLATION – All orders, votes, resolutions or ordinances of a legislative nature shall have two readings before final passage. The second reading shall be by title only, if at the same meeting as the first and if no member objects. For matters that require a public hearing, the second reading will not take place until after the public hearing has been held. (Emphasis supplied.)

The requirement for multiple “readings” of a matter proposed at a municipal meeting goes back to early England. Back then, bills before Parliament were handwritten so it was difficult for members to read them in advance of voting on them (and some members couldn’t read in the first place). So members would know what they were voting on, the clerk of Parliament would read the full text of a bill on three consecutive days so that everyone in attendance understood what was before the body.

Although we live in an age of near-universal literacy and proposals before government bodies are widely disseminated online, the procedural rule of multiple readings remains on the books and is more than an ancient artifact since it does give any one member of a legislative body – like the Lowell City Council – the power to slam on the brakes of the potential passage of a matter for whatever reason (or for no reason) that the objecting member desires.

However, in the more than 50 years I’ve been watching Lowell City Council meetings, it has been exceedingly rare for councilors to make use of this rule. I struggle to recall a half dozen times when a councilor objected in this manner, yet I believe this is the second time in his 10 months on the council that Councilor McDonough has utilized this tactic.

That said, McDonough is not alone in his norm breaking. Until just recently, the long-held practice of the Lowell City Council was not to place anything of substance on the agenda of a meeting that fell on the day of an election, whether city or state. Under our system, politics and governing operate hand-in-hand. On election night, it’s reasonable to assume that many who might otherwise participate in (or at least pay attention to) a municipal meeting would be focused on the election. A resident actively involved in the public life of the city should not be confronted with the zero-sum choice of campaigning for a preferred candidate or cause on election night or appearing at a municipal meeting to speak on an important topic.

****

This week on richardhowe.com, Leo Racicot reminisced about the importance of the Lowell Sun in the life of the community.

In my Wednesday Seen & Heard column, I continued my coverage of the debate about whether more or fewer people are reading in the US today; I commented about a recently-released study on the high incidence of CTE among NFL players; and I noted that the Milwaukee Brewers won the World Series.