27 Massachusetts Elected Officials Endorse No on Question 3
Seven state senators, eleven state representatives, and local leaders from the Merrimack Valley to the Cape join the campaign against the top-two primary.
BOSTON — Voter Rights MA today announced endorsements from 27 elected officials across Massachusetts opposing Question 3, the November ballot measure that would eliminate party primaries and replace them with a single top-two primary.
The list includes seven members of the state Senate, eleven members of the House, a county sheriff, a mayor, and municipal officials from Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Revere, Lawrence and Lynn
"We are proud to announce these endorsements," said Jordan Berg Powers, Chair of Voter Rights MA, the ballot question committee opposed to Question 3. "These are the candidates who would be hurt by the top two. They ran in contested primaries. They won without permission from anyone. Under top two, a crowded field can leave a district with two November candidates who agree on everything. They know what this question would do to the next person who tries."
Question 3 would end the current primary system, in which each party nominates a candidate. In its place, all candidates would run in one primary, and only the top two finishers would advance to the general election.
“I was the first elected official in Massachusetts to endorse legalizing cannabis. I don't defend broken systems, and I'm not here to carry water for the Democratic Party. I'm here because I've run citywide, and I know what it costs. Under Question 3, one election decides everything, and the only currencies that matter are money and name recognition. Those get handed out in rooms I've sat in. They are not in Roxbury, Mattapan, or Chelsea. And don't tell me Boston already does this. Boston is a nonpartisan city race with a majority Black and brown electorate, where you can still win on shoe leather. Question 3 takes that model to a six-million-person state with a Boston media market. It doesn't scale. A handful of private equity donors put millions into rewriting the rules of our elections. Ask who the new rules were written for. Vote No on 3," said Tito Jackson, former Boston City Councilor and 2017 candidate for Mayor.
“I’m probably one of the lower net wealth people in office right now. I come from outside politics, I worked in community organizing and development type stuff before. Open primaries will make it significantly harder for folks with my background to run for office. If the word of the next few years is “affordability”, open primaries are not the answer,” said State Representative Sam Montaño (D-Jamaica Plain).
"This question is misleading and hurts first-time candidates like I was. Essentially, it will reward the richest candidate who can buy up TV and media. The rich already have too much voice in politics. Why would we make it the system default?” said State Senator Lydia Edwards (D-Boston)
“Open primaries may sound like reform, but we have to ask who actually benefits. For candidates who come from working-class communities, who don’t have personal wealth or wealthy networks behind them, running for office is already incredibly difficult. A system that makes campaigns even more expensive and more dependent on television, advertising, and name recognition will only raise the barrier to entry. At a time when we’re telling people that affordability is one of our highest priorities, we shouldn’t make democracy less affordable for the very people we want to step forward and serve. We need more working people, more community leaders, and more first-time candidates to believe they can run and win—not a system that gives another advantage to whoever can write the biggest check. That’s why I’m voting No on Question 3,” said State Senator Adam Gómez (D-Springfield).
“California ran this experiment. The results are terrible. In one race, four Democrats split the vote in a majority-minority district Obama won by sixteen points. Yet, because of the top two system, those voters spent November choosing between only two Republicans. This is a system that rewards wealthy candidates. Massachusetts primaries are already open. Unenrolled voters, the majority of this state, can pull whichever ballot they want. Question 3 just makes it easier for the excessively wealthy to engineer election outcomes of their choosing. No on 3,” said State Representative Andres Vargas (D-Haverhill).
“Question 3 is a solution looking for a problem that does not exist. Independent and unenrolled voters in Massachusetts already have the right to participate in our primary elections by choosing a Democratic or Republican ballot. We don’t need to dismantle a system voters understand to give people a right they already have. Instead of creating more confusion and fundamentally changing how our elections work, we should focus on increasing voter participation and strengthening our democracy. That’s why I’m voting NO on Question 3,” said State Representative Russell Holmes (D–Mattapan).
“As the son of an immigrant in Lawrence, I did not have access to wealthy networks. I won my seat through hard work, going door to door, meeting voters and talking about issues. Question 3 would seriously hurt candidates like me in the future. Community organizers and those doing the work in the community every day will be at a severe disadvantage to those who can self-fund or have access to wealthy donors. That’s bad for democracy, those closest to their constituents should be elected, not those closest to donors,” said State Senator Pavel Payano, (D-Lawrence).
The officials announcing their endorsement today include:
State Senate
Lydia Edwards, Third Suffolk
James Eldridge, Middlesex and Worcester
Dylan Fernandes, Plymouth and Barnstable
Adam Gómez, Hampden
Paul Mark, Berkshire, Hampden, Franklin and Hampshire
Jacob Oliveira, Hampden, Hampshire and Worcester
Pavel Payano, First Essex
State House
Kip Diggs, 2nd Barnstable
Kate Donaghue, 19th Worcester
Brandy Fluker-Reid, 12th Suffolk
Carlos González, 10th Hampden
Homar Gómez, 2nd Hampshire
Ryan Hamilton, 15th Essex
Russell Holmes, 6th Suffolk
Jay Livingstone, 8th Suffolk
Samantha Montaño, 15th Suffolk
Estela Reyes, 4th Essex
Andres Vargas, 3rd Essex
County
Donna D. Buckley, Sheriff, Barnstable County
Municipal
Stephany Infante, City Councilor, District E, Lawrence
Timothy Flaherty, City Councilor At-Large, Cambridge
Brian LaPierre, City Councilor At-Large, Lynn
Jeovanny Rodriguez, Council President, Lawrence
Jake Wilson, Mayor, Somerville
Brian Worrell, City Councilor, District 4, Boston
Tito Jackson, former City Councillor, Roxbury
Juan Pablo Jaramillo, former City Councilor, Revere
Voter Rights MA is the ballot committee opposing Question 3, and our coalition is growing each day. The coalition already has already announced the endorsements of the AFL-CIO, SEIU State Council, SEIU1199, SEIU 509, SEIU 32BJ, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Progressive Massachusetts, Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts, Act On Mass, and the Massachusetts Democratic Party.