UPDATE 10/30/25: All of Somerville United Against Discrimination’s requests have been denied, Middlesex Superior Court Judge Sarah Weyland Ellis ruled Thursday, who said that “allowing the Plaintiffs to halt an election that has already begun would be contrary to the public’s interest in the conduct of orderly elections.”
The group’s request to invalidate signatures was denied as “there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision,” Ellis wrote, referencing the Oct. 6 Somerville Elections Commission decision. The request for a 150 word opposition statement on the ballot was also denied — “there is no statutory authority for the City to issue a summary description of Ballot Question 3,” Ellis wrote. SUAD’s claim that the question was unconstitutionally vague did not hold up either, as the question is nonbinding. Judge Ellis also denied the group’s request to recall and reprint existing ballots.
Somerville, Mass. – In a second attempt to remove Question 3 from the Somerville ballot, Somerville United Against Discrimination filed an Oct. 14 lawsuit against the City of Somerville. With early voting for the Nov. 4 election starting Tuesday and mail-in voting already in progress, the case has not yet been ruled on. The question is a non-binding call to end business with companies that “engage in business that sustains Israel’s apartheid genocide and illegal occupation of Palestine.” The group alleged that the question was unconstitutional and that the signatures collected to put it on the ballot are invalid.
After the Somerville Elections Commission voted to overrule SUAD’s first objection on October 6, the question is officially on the ballot. About 7,700 mail-in ballots featuring the question have already been sent, according to Chair of the Board of Election Commissioners Nicholas Salerno’s affidavit. SUAD did not respond to a request for comment on what would happen to these ballots/votes, or if they intended for Somerville to have already-printed ballots reprinted without the question.
SUAD, a group backed by the Anti Defamation League and Combined Jewish Philanthropies, has met its goal of $200,000 to oppose the measure, according to an Instagram post from Shalom Somerville, a pro-Israel group affiliated with SUAD that formed in early 2024.
Helmed by Somerville resident Sam Gechter, Somerville United Against Discrimination was started in June with the intention of “ensuring that Somerville does not adopt discriminatory ballot questions,” according to its Statement of Organization as a ballot question committee. The group called Question 3 “vague, unfounded, libelous, factually wrong and antisemitic,” as well as “illegal” in its complaint.
“We knew we had been diligent and transparent about following the legal process to a tee from start to finish in this campaign,” Lucy Tumavicus, Somerville Boycott Measure for Palestine Committee treasurer, said at an Oct. 21 press conference. Her committee had collected 11,000 signatures after the Somerville City Council voted to place the question “on file” in March.
The question specifically names Israel, something nearby Medford did not do in its divestment ordinance, but Northampton’s resolution did. “I think for sure, it definitely put a bigger target on our back,” Neda Mustafa, a Palestinian-American member of Somerville for Palestine said of the question’s wording at the Oct. 21 press conference. “We are demanding that our tax money be taken out of atrocities and war crimes. And the war crimes are being done by Israel,” she said.
SUAD’s claims
SUAD’s first argument in the newest complaint is that the vote to place the question “on file” wasn’t final. Because the city council had until Aug. 6 to approve the measure, SUAD argues, any signatures collected prior to that date are invalid, as the time for signature collection had not begun.
However, the Oct. 6 Election Commission decision noted that “on file” is a final action. “In my experience as Clerk of the City Council,” Clerk Kimberly Wells also said in an Oct. 21 affidavit, “a vote by the city council to place an item ‘on file’ is considered a final action.” Tumavicus said the city had confirmed with them they were approved to start collecting signatures after the question was put “on file.”
SUAD also argues that Question 3 is “uconstitutionally vague” [sic] for a variety of reasons, including that it does not define the borders of Palestine, does not say who is instructing the city, and does not say what it means to sustain apartheid, genocide, and occupation. Ignorance surrounding Palestine, SUAD argues, is also reason to invalidate the question, saying that “[t]he term ‘Occupation of Palestine’ is not understood by the average person and in fact is consider one of the most difficult issues to describe to describe to many people” [sic].
In the complaint, the group calls the question unconstitutional “as it infringes on the federal foreign affairs power.” This was accompanied by the testimony of Osnat Hoffman, a top donor to SUAD, according to a required disclaimer on opposition mailers, who said she witnessed someone collecting signatures for the question saying that Tel Aviv was in occupied Palestine.
The suit also included a petition to add a 150-word explanation of the “no” position to the question, which the Elections Commission also previously rejected, saying in its Oct. 6 decision that the board “lacks the authority to order the relief sought.” The proposed explanation calls the question “illegal and discriminatory” and accuses it of removing critical resources like HP Chromebooks in classrooms. A “no” vote, it said, is “prioritizing Somerville and its residents.”
It also added that the question will lead to lawsuits, a concern listed on mailers and on the website of Focus on Somerville, an advocacy group funded by SUAD. “I guess they would know,” said Tumavicus, “because they’re the only group that’s brought legal challenges against this question.” SUAD did not respond to a request for comment asking if the group plans to sue the city if the question passes.
SUAD’s complaint says that the ballot question prevents residents and elected officials from focusing on Somerville and that it will lead to wasted resources. Mustafa called their legal challenges “a waste of taxpayer dollars, is a waste of the city’s time, and our time.”
“I am afraid that Jewish businesses and organizations will be discriminated against as a policy measure of the City,” SUAD president Sam Gechter said in an Oct. 20 affidavit. The accusation of antisemitism is referenced several times in the complaint. Tumavicus said her committee drafted the question to apply to businesses “on the basis of their actions rather than their identity.”
This article was produced for HorizonMass, the independent, student-driven, news outlet of the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism and is syndicated by BINJ’s MassWire news service.
