A dispute over signatures is at the heart of a hearing at City Hall tomorrow night that could end with a candidate being disqualified from the November election ballot.
Sherri O’Connor Barboza, who is attempting to challenge two-term incumbent Kim Scott for the District 5 (South Lowell) City Council seat, posted on her campaign’s Facebook page last week that Scott has challenged her signatures and that a hearing is scheduled for August 20th at 5pm regarding the matter.
Contacted by InsideLowell over the weekend, Barboza texted “Kim Scott contested my nomination signatures just two minutes before the deadline” and that a hearing was already held Tuesday, August 12. However, Barboza contends she only received certified notice of the scheduled hearing on Monday the 11th and that her attorney requested dismissal or a future date “due to insufficient notice and the lack of clear opposition to any particular signatures.”
The deadline for filing “objections to the nomination of candidates” was 5pm on Thursday, August 7.
Barboza just squeaked onto the ballot with 151-certified signatures submitted by the July 22 deadline to return nomination papers, with the final batch certified shortly before the deadline by the city’s Election Office. Barboza had also attempted to get her name on the ballot for District 3 School Committee, but could only get 143-signatures certified, seven short of the 150-minimum required to get on the ballot for that office as well.
“The basis was only to knock me off the ballot,” Barboza replied when asked what basis she was provided for her signatures being challenged. “She (Kim Scott) listed illegible signatures, and other reasons, every set of nomination papers for all candidates in Lowell have the same circumstances but only mine were challenged.”
InsideLowell has learned that one of the issues at play in the challenge is that multiple signatures certified as part of Barboza’s city council submissions were disqualified from her school committee nomination papers. One of the residents who signed provided a P.O. Box as the voter’s address, while another was from a name not registered to vote at the address provided, or anywhere else in the city.
Scott refused comment on the situation, and Lowell’s Director of Elections, Will Rosenberry, did not respond to our requests for information.
Greg Pappas, Rosenberry’s predecessor in the elections office and a former elections official for Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin, tells us “it’s not at all uncommon to see challenges, especially when a candidate is barely over the minimum number of required signatures.”
He cited providing a P.O. Box instead of a residential address, an address on nomination papers that doesn’t match the address on the voter file, illegible signatures and not living within the city/district as the usual reasons signatures are disqualified.
Pappas, who is also a member of InsideLowell’s election coverage team, highlighted how “most candidates turn in signatures well above the minimum required for this exact reason” and that gathering them is part of meeting all legal requirements in the campaign process and running an effective campaign.
Pappas indicated that the challenge would have to be ruled on by the city’s Election Commission, with the City Solicitor and Elections Director also present to answer any legal or election questions.
Lowell’s Elections Commission is chaired by William Murphy, with James A. Pope, Lynda J. Clark and Candace H. Lawrence also as members. Those four, along with City Solicitor Corey Williams, make up the five votes deciding on the signature challenge.
“Corey Williams denied residents of Lowell who approached the podium the opportunity to speak,” Barboza wrote in her text. “These are signatures of residents of Lowell and the integrity of our democratic process.”
When contacted about Barboza’s claims, Williams said the signature challenge process is different from a city council meeting or public hearing.
“The hearing that took place on August 12th (and was continued to tomorrow 8/20) is different than the “public hearings” most are used to seeing,” Williams wrote in an email to InsideLowell. “For example, a public hearing for a city ordinance or vote is posted and members of the public are afforded the opportunity to address the Council to speak in favor or against. The hearing in question is governed by M.G.L. c. 55B, s. 7, and is specific to the filing of an objection to a candidate’s nomination papers. This is considered a “quasi-judicial, administrative” hearing before the Elections Commission and the City Solicitor. Per the statute, the decision makers for this process are both the Elections Commission and the City Solicitor.”
“At these hearings, the individual who filed the objection and the candidate whose nomination papers are being challenged, are given the opportunity to present witnesses, provide evidence, and provide testimony to the EC and the City Solicitor for consideration in determining whether or not the merits of the objection are valid,” Williams continued. “Unless called as a witness by either party during the proceeding, a member of the public may not participate in the hearing and/or address the parties, including the EC/City Solicitor. This procedure is consistent across most legal and administrative proceedings.”
Barboza’s text says she is represented by “Panas Law” in the matter.
An email to the Law Office of George N. Panas inquiring about which specific attorney is on the case went unreturned, however a source tells us Kelley Guerra is the attorney who represented her at the August 12 hearing.
Interestingly enough, George N. Panas represented a complainant challenging nomination signatures of Tewksbury Selectman Mark Kratman and Planning Board candidate Karen DiFruscia at a similar hearing that took place in that town back in March of 2025.
