Thank you to everyone who attended the May 2025 lengthy Town Meeting. We defeated Article 29 (requiring ID’s at Town Meetings) – this affront to Democracy was voted down. Thank you to MDTC members and others who spoke against the article, and to Geoff Foster, Executive Director of Common Cause, MA who partnered with us on providing great information and talking points.
Download the Vote No on Article 29 Flyer for more information (pdf).
Why Not Article 29?
- Article 29 is a solution in search of a problem – Eligible registered voters now receive a clicker to vote at Town Meetings, which has strengthened election integrity while maintaining accessibility for voters
It is said that Article 29 would prevent the confusion that occurred during the close fire truck vote. However, even if we had been required to show ID at the door, non-voters would still have been present because you don’t have to be a voter to be in the room. The clickers have solved that complication without jeopardizing registered voters’ right to participate.
- Article 29 might REDUCE Town Meeting participation – Not everyone has an easily accessible ID or other document to prove their residency. That shouldn’t disqualify them if state law already allows them to vote in a town election without one. Why have more restrictive standards for Town Meeting than we have for town or state elections?
- Article 29 could be illegal under state law – Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L.) Chapter 39, Section 18 says that “the moderator shall receive the vote of any person whose name is on the voting list or who presents a proper certificate from the registrars of voters.” This new by-law could run afoul of state law, and could result in costly and time-consuming litigation for the town as state law doesn’t require any additional proof of eligibility beyond being on the voter roll. State law does not require ID to be on the voter roll.
- Nationwide, voter ID laws have been used as a form of voter suppression – Voter ID laws are often used to make voting harder. Voter IDs can be used to target eligible voters who are less likely to have IDs. In reality, this means these laws suppress the vote from elderly, disabled, low-income and voters of color.
- Voting is not like driving a car or buying alcohol – You may hear the argument that a person has to have an ID to drive a car or buy alcohol—so why can’t we require ID to vote? To be fair: driving a car and buying alcohol are privileges. Voting is a fundamental right.
- The ID’s suggested are don’t add up – Library cards have no address. Utility bills and contracts are typcially in one person’s name, which would disenfranchise other residents that live at the same address. Credit or debit statements are frankly no one’s business and do not have an address. Student IDs are more likely to have a college address.
Letter to Medway from Geoff Foster of Common Cause MA
Good evening Medway Voters,
While I am the Executive Director of Common Cause Massachusetts – a people-powered organization working towards public policy that strengthens voting and elections, I’m also a proud native of Medway having lived the first 20 years of my life on Ellis Street.
I was concerned when I learned about Article 29 on tonight’s warrant and would strongly encourage you all to vote No on this proposal.
Installing new rules that could make engagement harder for some is a step in the wrong direction for all. Requiring IDs to participate in Town Meeting, like Voter ID laws in other states, can create additional barriers to participation which could lead to disenfranchising the elderly, people with disabilities, and communities of color.
Furthermore, if passed tonight, Article 29 will face a legal review by the Attorney General’s office and could be considered illegal under state law. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 39, Section 18 says that “the moderator shall receive the vote of any person whose name is on the voting list or who presents a proper certificate from the registrars of voters.”
This could result in costly and time-consuming litigation for the town as state law doesn’t require any additional proof of eligibility beyond being on the voter roll. It’s also important to note that state law does not require ID to be on the voter roll to vote in local elections and similar efforts to pass this policy at the statewide level fail to gain traction.
Please Vote NO on Article 29. Election integrity matters, but it is already built into our voter registration process. Adding a new ID burden as a requirement for participation in Town Meetings moves our democracy in the wrong direction. Thank you.
Geoff Foster,
Common Cause Massachusetts
Article 29
Citizens’ Petition) To see if the Town will vote to amend the General By-laws by adding a section: Presentation of Identification Any and all registered voters shall be required to show some form of identification prior to voting at all Town Meetings. Such identification shall preferably contain a photograph but, at the very least, shall be sufficient to verify the full name and address of the voter. Sufficient forms of identification include, but are not limited to, the following: Massachusetts driver’s license, passport, student I.D., utility bill or statement, library card, credit or debit card statement, lease or rental contract, mortgage or other bank statement, property tax bill or statement.”
Resources
