ELECTION ALERT

35 Signatures. 22,000+ Voters. The Select Board Said Yes.

March 24, 2026  |  Ballot Question 4  |  May 19 Town Election

On March 24, 2026, the Yarmouth Select Board voted 4–1 to place a non-binding “Equal Rights for Yarmouth Residents” question on the May 19 ballot. Only Tracy Post voted no. Here is the complete story — the timeline, the law, the full text of the question, and why it matters.

Timeline of Events

Early March 2026 — Petition circulated under MGL c.53 §18A, requiring only 35 certified signatures from registered Yarmouth voters.

March 17, 2026 — Petition with 35+ signatures submitted to the Yarmouth Town Clerk for certification.

March 20, 2026 — 11:36 AM — YRTC Secretary Billy Kirwin emails the Select Board requesting details on the petition and noting the connection to the previously defeated sanctuary-style resolution.

March 20, 2026 — 12:39 PM — Town Administrator Robert Whritenour responds in writing, CC’ing the entire Select Board. He confirms the petition is “directly related” to the prior human rights resolution — the same issue, different mechanism. He also confirms 35 signatures were certified and admits his office does not have the petition language.

March 24, 2026 — Yarmouth Select Board takes up the matter at their regular meeting. After public comment, votes 4–1 to place the question on the May 19 ballot. Tracy Post casts the sole “no” vote.

May 19, 2026 — Annual Town Election. Question 4 will appear on the ballot as a non-binding advisory question.

The Town’s Own Administrator Confirmed It

On March 20, 2026, YRTC Secretary Billy Kirwin emailed the Select Board asking about the petition and its connection to the human rights resolution that had previously been brought before the board and defeated after residents showed up to oppose it.

Within an hour, Town Administrator Robert Whritenour responded — and CC’d every member of the Select Board:

From: Robert Whritenour, Town Administrator — March 20, 2026 12:39 PM

“You also reference the previous discussion of the Select Board with respect to a human rights resolution, which does appear to be directly related to the petition as it is for a similar purpose, only requesting approval by voters as opposed to a resolution of the Board.”

In plain English: the Town Administrator confirmed in writing — with the entire Select Board copied — that this ballot question is a second attempt at the same sanctuary-style resolution that was previously defeated. The only difference is the mechanism: instead of asking the Select Board to pass a resolution, the petitioner used a state law requiring just 35 signatures to go around the board and put it directly to voters.

Every Select Board member saw this email before the March 24 vote. They knew this was a rehash. Four of them voted to place it on the ballot anyway.

The Law: MGL Chapter 53, Section 18A

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 53, Section 18A allows voters to place non-binding public policy questions on local election ballots. The requirements are minimal:

  • A petition signed by at least 35 registered voters of the municipality
  • Submitted to the Town Clerk at least 35 days before the election
  • The Town Clerk certifies the signatures
  • The question is placed on the ballot — no Select Board approval is required for placement

However, the Select Board did vote on whether to place this question. They had the authority to evaluate the petition and could have demanded a higher standard of community engagement. They chose not to.

The Threshold Comparison

35 signatures needed for a non-binding question (MGL c.53 §18A)
2,265 signatures needed for a binding ballot question (10% of registered voters)
64.7× the difference in the standard of proof
0.15% of Yarmouth’s electorate was needed to place this question

Full Text of Ballot Question 4

The following is the exact text that will appear on the May 19, 2026 ballot:

Non-Binding Advisory Question

“Shall the Town of Yarmouth go on record in support of equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all residents of Yarmouth regardless of sex, race, color, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, ancestry, military veteran status, or physical or mental disability?”

Why This Matters

The question is non-binding. Even if it passes, it creates no legal obligation for the Town of Yarmouth. It does not change any policy, ordinance, or bylaw. It is a political statement — nothing more.

The language is deliberately vague. Who would vote against “equal rights”? The question is designed to pass overwhelmingly — and then be cited as a mandate for further policy action. The real question is not what’s on the ballot. It’s what comes next.

The process was the problem. The Select Board had every right to reject this petition and demand that proponents demonstrate real community support. A binding question requires 2,265 signatures — 10% of registered voters. This petition needed 35. Four Select Board members chose to accept that 0.15% threshold as “enough.”

“A binding question requires 2,265 signatures — 10% of registered voters. This petition needed 35. The Select Board had every right to reject it and demand real community support. Instead, four members handed 35 petitioners the same platform that should require the backing of thousands.”

The Select Board Vote

YES — Voted to place the question:
Dorcas McGurrin
Mark Forest
Joyce Flynn
Liz Argo

NO — Voted against placement:
Tracy Post (Chair)

The four members who voted “yes” made a choice. They chose to validate a 35-signature petition as sufficient grounds to put a political question before 22,842 voters. They could have demanded the same standard of engagement required for a binding question. They didn’t.

What You Can Do

← Back to News & Updates