Facts About Sudbury's Recall Election Law - MA Legislative Bill H.5521

On September 3rd, the Massachusetts State Legislature's Joint Committee on Election Laws (JCEL) reported favorably by unanimous* vote out of committee House Bill H.5521 - an Act Providing for Recall Elections in the Town of Sudbury- which our May 20th Special Town Meeting decisively approved. The JCEL's unanimous vote was entirely consistent with the Joint Committee's past affirmative votes and the MA Legislature's record on municipal recall election laws it has judged acceptable and enacted.

This bill has been favorably reported to the MA Legislative Committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling for the next steps in its legislative journey first to the House side to then be followed by action on the Senate side, then before the whole legislature and upon approval signed by the governor.

I want to thank both State Representative Carmine Gentile and State Senator Jamie Eldridge for promptly filing Sudbury's Recall Election Bill with the State Legislature. I look forward to Rep. Gentile's prompt pro-active support and guidance of the bill through the legislative process on the House side to move it forward to the Senate side. Senator Eldridge has publicly commented that "I co-sponsored the bill and that's what I've done to indicate my support for it."

However, Rep. Gentile released a statement recently, quoted in Sudbury Weekly on September 9th, expressing his concerns about the bill. Gentile also stated he was surprised that the recall election bill was voted favorably. Actually, it would have been surprising if the bill had not been reported favorably because for the JCEL to have voted no and send it for study would have gone against the JCEL's own voting record (as explained below).

I wish to ease and dispel Rep. Gentile's concerns and misconceptions by providing positive reassuring facts that directly support and warrant H.5521's swift enactment this Legislative session.

First. contrary to Rep. Gentile's statement, the Massachusetts State Legislature has in fact approved and enacted a municipal recall election law in the same combinations of provisions that are identical to Sudbury's recall provisions. The recall provisions in the Town of Medway's Charter (MA Legislature Special Acts of 2020, Chapter 61) are identical to the provisions in Sudbury's provisions. Medway's recall has the:

same 10% registered voter signature requirement for its recall petition as Sudbury's,

same ban on recall within three months of an official taking office as Sudbury's,

same combined simultaneous recall and election as Sudbury's,

same ban on re-appointment to any town office within two years of recall or resignation as Sudbury's, and the

same requirement that grounds for recall be provided in both the affidavit and petition, but with no restrictions on what those grounds can or cannot be, as Sudbury's.

Rep. Gentile expressed concerns about three of Sudbury's recall provisions (the first three listed above). He is quoted in Sudbury Weekly as stating, "...nowhere in Massachusetts are all three put together..." Not so. In fact, not only are those three provisions "put together" in Medway's State Legislature approved and enacted recall law, but all five provisions (as listed above) are in both Medway's and Sudbury's.

In addition to Sudbury's recall mirroring Medway's, there are also dozens and dozens and dozens of municipal recall measures favorably approved by the Joint Committee on Election Laws and enacted by the State Legislature that are combinations of two, three or more provisions mirroring Sudbury's recall election law. None of Sudbury's recall provisions invent the wheel - Sudbury copied recall provisions both in substance and combinations previously approved time and time again by the State Legislature. Nothing new or novel to see here with Sudbury's recall law. The facts and data demonstrate that Sudbury's recall law is not "deeply or structurally flawed" as some townspeople inaccurately claim. It is perfectly standard fare in force today in municipalities across Massachusetts such as Erving, Rutland, Westwood and Williamstown.

Another point - other than Sudbury's 1989 Charter Commission whose charter recommendations were rejected and defeated in the 1991 town election - Sudbury has never conducted another charter commission for any charter amendments. There was no charter commission study in 2012 to go from a three to five member Select Board - which was approved by a Special Town Meeting called by a citizen-initiated petitioner's article -just like the 2026 May citizen-initiated Special Town Meeting recall article. In 1994, a town charter special acts bill was submitted by the town directly to and approved by the State Legislature bypassing voter consideration and approval. Only after the State Legislature approved Sudbury's Town Charter was the charter bought before town voters for approval.

So, Rep. Gentile rest assured you are on solid legislative ground to do your critical part to supporting and guiding H.5521 towards swift enactment. H.5521 should and must be moved quickly through the House to then move on to the Senate side before the current State Legislative session ends January 2027. Based on the State Legislative record Sudbury's recall bill is a slam dunk. Sudbury's recall provisions are - so to speak - already pre-approved due to all the past State Legislature's approvals of recall election laws identical to Sudbury's.

I was not involved in bringing the citizen petitioner's recall article to May Special Town Meeting. I did not know the citizens who sponsored the article. I attended STM after conducting my own research on recall election laws in Massachusetts - researching almost all 351 municipalities. After seeing the facts and data, learning that Sudbury's recall provisions were not an outlier but within the mainstream, that identical provisions to Sudbury's had already been approved many times by the State Legislature, and that all recall provisions fit Sudbury's registered voter base and usual Annual Town Elections and Town Meeting attendance levels, I voted for the recall article.

I respectfully request - and expect - that my Town Meeting vote and those of all the citizen-legislators who cast in favor of the recall election law decisively approving Article 3 will be respected and honored by Rep. Gentile. This is how democracy is supposed to work.

The will of Sudbury Town Meeting has spoken - and should be carried out.

Rep. Gentile, please respect Town Meeting by acting expeditiously to support and move H.5521 towards enactment at the State House. Thank you.

*The Massachusetts Legislature's Rules governing the legislative process stipulates that only members of a joint committee of the chamber in which a bill is filed may vote on the bill before the joint committee - in this case the House members for House Bill H.5521. Contrary to comments in a recent Sudbury Weekly article - only the eleven House members of the joint committee (not all seventeen members) were permitted to vote on House Bill H.5521. The six Senators, including Senator Eldridge, were not allowed per the Rules to vote on the House bill. Unsurprisingly, Senate members had not attended the July 21st joint committee hearing - why would they as they would not be voting on a House bill. All eleven House members voted H.5521 favorably for a unanimous 11-0 vote.