The Ballad of Quincy’s Ballot Questions
Revisiting Quincy's Mayoral Term Ballot Question: What Happened in 2013 and Why It Still Matters
TL;DR / Highlights:
In 2013, Quincy voters approved a citizen-led ballot initiative extending the mayor’s term from two to four years.
That initiative appears to have passed with only 17% voter turnout—despite Quincy’s charter requiring one-third of all registered voters to approve such measures.
A new group, Quincy Citizens for Fair Raises (QCFR), is trying to use a similar ballot initiative to reverse controversial 2024 pay raises.
This blog explores whether the 2013 vote set a precedent and why it matters for today’s campaign.
Public records requests yielded no clear answers, and Quincy’s charter remains outdated, raising transparency concerns.
Bottom line: if 2013's change held up with low turnout, today’s efforts might not need to hit a one-third turnout either.
A Just Quincy, Ballot Questions, and the Power of Process
A Just Quincy is now over a year old. The community that has formed around this organization—its readers, contributors, and accomplices—first came together in response to last year’s controversy, which I somewhat cheekily labeled “Salarygate.” The mayor giving himself a 79% raise while offering the city council a 58% raise (which the council later lowered to 50%) ignited widespread outrage. People collectively said, “Enough!” It was a slow, shameless theft, playing out in plain sight over months with the consent of elected representatives.
As a devoted TV watcher, the whole affair reminded me of an episode of Derry Girls. In it, two men posing as school custodians convinced "the girls" to load the very computer equipment they were there to steal into a van for them. That implausible yet fitting caper resonated with the hijinks those lovable teenagers often found themselves in. Quincy’s Salarygate was even more implausible—a bold, seemingly legal pilferage committed in broad daylight with media coverage and protests highlighting it.
To fight back against this unfunny episode of It’s Always Sunny in Quincy, AJQ launched a referendum petition campaign as described in Section 42 of Quincy’s City Charter. This is a type of petition aimed at disallowing a measure passed by the city council or school committee. The bar we had to clear was exceptionally high: we needed the signatures of 12% of Quincy’s registered voters within just 20 days of the ordinance’s passing. If successful, the City Council would need to repeal the raises or put the question directly to the voters via one of the most direct tools in democracy’s toolbox—the ballot question.
In addition to the referendum petition, Quincy's city charter offers another type of citizen petition that comes in two flavors for placing initiatives on the municipal ballot. These are found in Sections 39 and 40, and they differ in both signature requirements and voter thresholds for passage.
Section 39 kicks in when petitioners gather signatures from at least 20% of registered voters. That level of support puts the question on the ballot, where it needs just a simple majority of those voting to pass.
Section 40 covers petitions with support from 8% to just under 20% of voters. But there's a catch: at the end of Section 40 (and applying to both 39 and 40), the charter states: “A measure proposed under this section or section thirty-nine shall become effective if it shall be approved by registered voters of the city equal in number to one third of the whole number thereof and also by a majority of the voters voting on such measure, but not otherwise.”
Right now, a group of Quincy residents is trying again to right the wrong of last year’s raises. They’re calling themselves Quincy Citizens for Fair Raises (QCFR) and aiming for 6,000 signatures by September 1. (Scott Jackson covered the effort in The Quincy Sun on July 23, 2025.)
To put that in perspective, AJQ got over 6,000 signatures last summer in just 20 days. So the number is very attainable. But the requirements of Quincy’s charter almost discouraged QCFR from trying again. The scary part is that one-third threshold: even with 6,000 signatures, they'd need a turnout higher than 33% and a majority of those voting to say “yes.”
To put that in context: in 2023, when the mayor faced a strong challenge from Anne Mahoney, turnout was just 30% (source: QuincyVotes). That means the threshold required to pass a ballot question under Section 40 would have been mathematically impossible to meet—even in a contested mayoral race.
Put a pin in that. Time for a flashback.
The last major local ballot question in Quincy was in 2013, when the Quincy Chamber of Commerce backed an initiative to change the mayor’s term from two years to four years. Proponents argued that continuity was crucial for a mayor to complete projects.
Here’s how a Patriot Ledger editorial framed it:
An effective leader needs momentum and requires the ability to follow through on projects, if not to completion, at least toward stability. A two-year term doesn’t allow for that. That’s why most elected executive administrators – such as the president and governors – serve four-year terms. (Patriot Ledger Opinion piece)
Many of us at AJQ freely admit we weren’t engaged in local politics back then. I remember voting “no,” but don’t recall being especially concerned when the measure passed.
There’s long been a mistaken belief that the City Council placed that question on the ballot. But according to press clippings and people involved at the time, that’s not true. Only a citizen petition could have put it on the ballot. The Quincy Chamber of Commerce did just that.
The measure passed by a two-to-one margin: 7,071 Yes, 3,339 No.
Here’s how the Patriot Ledger covered the outcome:
“Quincy voters emphatically approved a ballot question Tuesday that will double the length of the city’s mayoral term… The question was on the ballot thanks to a citizens petition filed by Quincy’s Chamber of Commerce.”
But here’s where it gets weird:
Longtime City Clerk Joseph P. Shea described voter turnout in Quincy’s election Tuesday as “bordering on anemic” with just 17 percent of the city’s 63,621 registered voters casting a ballot.
That turnout—16.7%—is a problem. Because the charter clearly says that a citizen ballot initiative only becomes law if one-third of registered voters approve it.
Seeking Clarity: A Failed Records Request
I filed a public records request to understand what happened. I asked for:
The official 2013 ballot language
Details on how the question got on the ballot
Vote certification
Whether it qualified under Section 39 or 40
The City Solicitor’s office responded:
“Ballots only need to be retained for 30 days… there are no records in the custody or control of your office responsive to the request.”
I wasn’t asking to see the physical ballots. I just wanted to read the question language and understand the process. The response was obtuse.
This isn’t nitpicking. Doubling the mayor’s term is a structural shift in Quincy’s government. We should know exactly how and when it happened—and that it followed the law.
Why This Matters Now
I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps there's some state law or case precedent that overrides this one-third threshold. But if there is, Quincy officials haven't mentioned it. What's equally perplexing is why the official Quincy City Charter, as available today (my screenshot is from the current copy dated January 2020), still states a two-year mayoral term.
For local residents, this might sound like I'm looking at the wrong charter, especially given our well-known council structure of 6 ward and 3 at-large councilors. That structure was established by a specific legislative act, Chapter 633 of 1956, which voters approved to restructure the City Council to include both at-large and ward-specific councilors. Yet, even that significant change may not be fully reflected in the publicly available charter today. This highlights a deeper issue: it appears our city charter, the foundational document governing Quincy, is not consistently updated to reflect changes enacted by voters.
This pattern of an un-updated charter, combined with the low turnout for the 2013 mayoral term vote and the city's inability to produce related records, paints a concerning picture.
The consequences of doubling the mayor’s term, whether legally passed or not, are clear:
The Mayor was now given a tremendous fundraising advantage. The city council has to run to keep their seats twice as much. Any possible challenge that comes from the city council is affected by this.
He is far less accountable to the Quincy residents, the results of which are starting to show."
These effects were anticipated by former Ward 6 Councilor Brian McNamee when asked about this in a 2013 interview:
““The two-year term is the only way a voter can immediately change the public policy direction of the Chief Executive… The longer term enhances the incumbent’s ability to raise money.”
It seems very possible that the mayor’s term was extended without the requirements of Quincy’s laws being fulfilled.
So, let’s assume:
We’re wrong about the law. Maybe something overrides the charter.
Or we’re wrong about which law applies. Maybe state law trumps it.
If either is true, then the bar for the current petition drive is lower than we thought. Even if the charter was never updated for a good reason, the precedent stands: A citizen petition changed Quincy’s governance with only 17% turnout.
That may be a roadmap for today.
QCFR was also ahead of the curve on a key issue—they identified the inconsistency between the 2013 ballot outcome and the one-third voter threshold long before I did and deserve credit for raising that flag early. It takes a village to raise a city.
The Big Picture—and a Small Ask
This isn’t about one question. If Quincy can be reshaped without documentation or accountability, what does that say about our democracy?
We deserve transparency. We deserve a process that follows the law—not one that evades it.
A Quick Call to Action
This petition effort has a better chance now.
Go sign it.
Better yet, the Quincy Citizens for Fair Raises need volunteers to help gather signatures. Yes, it feels like déjà vu—because it is. But last summer was a sprint: 20 days, 12% of voters.
