I’m teaching courses on U.S. politics and Massachusetts politics this semester. When I talk about the national and state Constitutions, one of the things I stress is that these Constitutions are like the rules of the game, and the rules matter. Local charters are no different, and the events unfolding in Fall River over the past several months demonstrate the rules matter more clearly than just about any example I could dream up for class.
By now, pretty much everyone knows that Mayor Correia is still in office because the language governing the recall process in the Fall River charter allowed him to run as a candidate for re-election on the same ballot. With a second round of accusations against him, the Fall River city council has attempted to remove him from office, as they are allowed to under the charter if the mayor is not fit to serve. But that language is ambiguous. While the council believes that the charges against the mayor make him unfit, there are others who disagree. They could take this to court, but I suspect that most state court judges won’t want to touch this one with a ten-foot pole. There is an electoral process playing out—why not let the voters decide rather than potentially set precedent that expands the scope of city council powers?
And so today, the voters in Fall River head to the polls, and once again, the rules matter. The Fall River mayoral primary is a top two system where the top two candidates advance to the general election. Given that Mayor Correia just over 35% of the votes in the post-recall election, the odds are pretty high that he will advance to the general election. I’ve talked to a few reporters on this one, and they are all saying that the people they are talking to on the street intend to vote for him again.
The math is slightly better for Paul Coogan, the key challenger in the race. He lost to Correia in the post-recall election by about 250 votes. With just one other challenger (as opposed to three others last time), Coogan will most likely gain some the approximately 25% of voters who voted for the two challengers who dropped out. The other remaining challenger, Erika Scott-Pacheco, will also likely pick up some of those votes and increase her 5.5% total from the March election, but the odds appear slim that she’ll pick up enough votes to make it to the general election.
Still, the rules mean that Correia will likely remain a candidate until November and the mayor until at least January as the prosecutorial process is unlikely to move any quicker than the electoral process. I joked with a friend the other day that perhaps the city of Fall River may want to review its charter given all this mess. The city did update the charter (which had not been reviewed in over 80 years as I understand) in 2017, but the new charter still isn’t entirely clear—not just on this issue, but on other issues as well.
There’s an important lesson to be learned here; all of these goings on in Fall River ought to indicate to local communities here in Massachusetts that regular review of the charter should be a priority. Some communities have charters that call for regular (usually every 10 years) review of the charter, while others, like Fall River, do not. Regardless of whether review is required, events suggest that review is prudent. After all, the rules of the game matter, and having clear and current rules should be a priority for every Massachusetts community.