Question One, which concerns how many signatures are needed to have a referendum placed on a ballot, is the highlight of the Nov. 2 Greenfield election, especially given the apparent lack of interest in running for office this time.
For weeks, the op-ed pages of the Recorder have contained letters and My Turns concerning this question. People on both sides of the issue have made compelling arguments about why residents should vote Yes or No.
And after careful consideration, the Greenfield Recorder says No to Question One.
For a recap, the ballot question asks voters to amend the city’s charter to change the required number of signatures for citizen referendum petitions from the current 10% of the total number of people voting in the most recent biennial city election — but not less than 2½% of all registered votes on the same date — and adopt as a measure, 7% of the total number of voters registered to vote in the most recent biennial city election.
Currently, the city has 12,915 registered voters, so if the new rule passes, it would require 904 signatures to get a referendum on the ballot in the next election.
The proposed change is part of the City Charter review that is conducted every 10 years. When the Charter Review Commission made its recommendations to City Council, it originally proposed 10% of the total number of registered voters but the council dropped that number to 7% in a compromise. The council also chose to let voters have their say via the Nov. 2 ballot question.
Under the current rule, if someone had wanted to put a referendum on the Nov. 2 ballot, they would have had to collect 556 signatures, a figure that is connected to the 5,557 voters who participated in the 2019 mayoral election.
Those who support the charter change argue that increasing the number of signatures required — that 7% of registered voters — will prevent frivolous referendums.
But how many referendums has the city had with the current number requirement? Two in 2019 when only 319 signatures made the 10% requirement.
One referendum challenged the passage of the safe city ordinance, which the City Council passed by a 10-3 vote. Then-Mayor William Martin vetoed the ordinance, saying it was unnecessary since an executive order passed two years earlier directed police not to ask for immigration status — which the council then overrode.
Voters at the polls supported the council’s ordinance.
Then, there was the referendum for the new public library, which only passed at the City Council level because of some wheeling and dealing among members over a change in zoning for the French King overlay district, which may be politics as usual but in our view tainted the decision. Apparently, others felt a challenge was necessary since the support on the council wasn’t overwhelming.
Again, the majority of voters sided with the City Council’s decision and the new $19.5 million library is going forward.
Question One is clearly an effort to make it difficult for voters to get a referendum on the ballot.
Consider the task of getting signatures — standing, say, on a street corner downtown or in front of a supermarket to ask individuals to sign a petition. First, many won’t be Greenfield residents or even registered voters. Secondly, the person would have to explain why they are seeking a signature.
Go house to house to gather signatures? The same scenario applies if people answer the door.
And they would have to do it in 23 days.
Also consider the additional work the city clerk’s office would have to ensure the signatures are legitimate.
We believe voters have the right to challenge a decision made by the City Council. It shouldn’t be too easy or too hard. Likewise, we feel that number should be linked to the number of people who actually show up to vote in city elections, those who are engaged and interested in what happens to their city.
Those who favor a Yes vote are displaying signs that says “Protect your vote.” Frankly, we believe that’s misleading since the only vote being protected are the ones made by 13 people on the City Council.
So we say No on Question One. Leave it the way it is.