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 in progress, the case has not been ruled on in Middlesex District Court in Woburn.
Update on Oct. 30, 2025: All of Somerville United Against Discrimination’s requests have been denied, Middlesex Superior Court judge Sarah Weyland Ellis ruled Thursday, saying 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, referring to an 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. The group’s claim that the question was unconstitutionally vague did not hold up either, as the question is nonbinding. Ellis also denied the group’s request to recall and reprint existing ballots.
The question is a nonbinding 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.
The Somerville Elections Commission voted Oct. 6 to overrule the first objection, and the question is officially on the ballot. About 7,700 mail-in ballots featuring the question have been sent, according to an affidavit in the case from Nicholas Salerno, chair of the Board of Election Commissioners. The opposing group did not respond to a request for comment on what would happen to these ballots and votes, or if they intended for Somerville to have already-printed ballots reprinted without the question.
Somerville United Against Discrimination, 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,” said Lucy Tumavicus, treasurer for Somerville Boycott Measure for Palestine Committee, 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. “It definitely put a bigger target on our back,” said Neda Mustafa, a Palestinian American member of Somerville for Palestine, speaking at the Oct. 21 press conference about the question’s wording. “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.
Questioning timing and constitutionality
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, The group argues, any signatures collected before that date are invalid, as the time for signature collection had not begun.
The Election Commission decision on Oct. 6 noted that “on file” is a final action – attested to in an Oct. 21 affidavit from City Council clerk Kimberly Wells. 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 unconstitutionally “vague” 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 define terms such as “apartheid,” “genocide” and “occupation.” Ignorance surrounding Palestine, Suad argues, is also reason to invalidate the question, saying that “the term ‘Occupation of Palestine’ is not understood by the average person and in fact” is considered one of the “most difficult issues to describe to describe to many people.”
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 saw someone collecting signatures for the question saying that Tel Aviv was in occupied Palestine.
Calling for space on ballot
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 such as HP Chromebooks from 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 referred to 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.”
A version of this story appeared originally on HorizonMass.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.