Within hours, the recent arrest of Lawrence Mayor Brian DePena on charges that he had defrauded the United States government out of $1.5 million dollars in COVID relief small business loans reignited stories about the city that, despite its amazing progress in recent years, just won’t go away.
The Boston Globe declared, “Lawrence mayor’s arrest a ‘step back’ for a city with a long history of political scandal” while NBC News Boston dragged out old footage with “After Lawrence mayor’s arrest, revisiting a predecessor’s scandals,” and then other outlets piled on.
The stories cited the constant investigations, charges, and convictions that dogged the administration of former Lawrence Mayor William Lantigua more than a decade ago, as well as recent scandals that, in addition to Mayor DePena’s arrest, include the conviction of his Chief of Staff on child pornography charges, concerns about voter fraud in a city councilor race, and the discovery of secret and illegal audio recordings inside City Hall.
Taken together, this mélange of malfeasance paints a picture of a city that, if you don’t know better, seems to embrace its bad boys (and the occasional bad girl), creating a reputation for lawlessness, especially among residents in the suburbs and beyond, that Lawrence does not deserve.
After all, no individual leader is larger or more important than the people of the city, state or nation they lead.
And besides, thanks to the way municipal elections are held, very few people in Lawrence, or in similar cities across Massachusetts and around the country, actually elect their mayor, so their reputation should not ride on his virtue once in office.
In the 2025 Lawrence municipal election, only 11,379 (17%) of the city’s 66,000 voting-age residents cast ballots, with Mayor DePena earning 6,106 votes over his challenger, Juan Manny Gonzalez, who chalked up 5,173.
That means a scant 9% of Lawrencians actually elected Mayor DePena.
While it may be tempting to blame voter apathy, weak turnout is unfortunately common everywhere in Gateway Cities like Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn, Chelsea and Brockton (where the mayor is also in hot water) with large populations of low-income, minority or immigrant residents, not because they don’t care, but for a host of other understandable reasons, like:
1. People don’t know there is an election.
If you don’t know there is an election this November, it’s because you’ve sworn off television, radio and social media, your electricity is out, and, quite possibly, you’re in a coma. The reporting, advertising, and public chatter is unavoidable.
Indeed, most media and voter attention gets paid to federal or statewide elections that happen in November of even-numbered years (like 2026).
But beyond the high-profile contests, there are 90,000 or so local governments across the country, including cities, counties, and townships, along with school, library, park and other special purpose districts that, together, appoint nearly half a million elected officials. And together, those local office holders have even more impact on most citizens’ everyday lives than presidents, members of Congress and governors.
The problem is, nearly 60% of U.S. cities, including, according to the Massachusetts Municipal Association, Lawrence and nearly every other city in the Commonwealth, hold their elections in “off-cycle,” odd-numbered years when hardly anyone is paying attention.
2. Poverty increases the “cost” of voting.
The poverty rate in Lawrence is 18%, nearly twice the statewide average of just under 10%; and the median household income is only $60,433, less than 60% of the state’s $103,960.
While it may take only a few minutes to actually cast a ballot, the full voting experience requires considerably more time. Voters need to know:
- when the election is,
- whether their registration is current,
- where and how to vote (including options for in-person, drop-off or mail-in ballots),
- who is running for which offices (and what those offices do),
- which extra questions are on the ballot (and what they mean),
- what the candidates stand for,
- why the outcome matters.
And time is money.
For someone working two jobs, using public transportation, arranging childcare, and dealing with an unpredictable work schedule (in addition to possibly taking classes part-time at their local community college), those relatively minor time costs add up quickly.
On top of all that, the act of voting often takes longer in poorer communities with larger populations of Black or Hispanic residents than in more affluent, White communities, thanks to strained budgets, fewer polling places and poll workers, and, sometimes, extra requirements like voter ID laws.
3. Mobility matters.
Lower-income Americans are less likely to own homes, and much more likely to rent and to move more frequently. Moving disrupts not only voter registration, but how attached someone feels to the community where they live, and how likely they are to vote.
About two-thirds of American households are homeowners, and about a third are renters; but in poorer communities, like Massachusetts Gateway Cities, that’s flipped: 72% of Lawrence households rent, while only 28% own their homes, and similar disparities exist in places like Lowell, Lynn, Worcester and Springfield.
The result? Fewer registered voters and lower turnout, especially for local elections.
How can cities like Lawrence help more residents vote?
Compared to many states, Massachusetts already makes voting relatively simple, though not for everyone.
According to the Institute for Responsive Government’s “Cost of Voting Index,” Massachusetts is already a “Top Tier” state, earning a C+ and ranking 11th easiest among all 50 states for providing online and automatic registration, along with pre-registration at age 16; in addition to not requiring identification, offering early, in-person voting, and no-excuse voting by mail.
However, we trail behind states like Maine, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin because we lack same day or election day registration, which could help low-income residents in cities like Lawrence who have relocated close to election time and want to cast a ballot in their new district.
Voters will have the opportunity to decide whether to make this change in November, since “Question 4, the Permit Same Day Voter Registration Initiative” is actually on the ballot, championed by Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin.
The most important change communities like Lawrence might consider, though, is the timing of elections. Considerable research has shown that moving a stand-alone municipal election in an odd-numbered year to align with any federal election typically doubles voter participation; and scheduling it during a presidential election can increase turnout by 25-35 points.
According to the Center for Effective Government at the University of Chicago, when it comes to aligning local and national elections, “The research is unanimous and persuasive: No other institutional reform we know of—short of making voting compulsory—comes anywhere close to having this kind of impact on turnout.”
Getting more people to the polls clearly does not guarantee electing honest, law-abiding candidates, but it can increase the scrutiny of those candidates, and their base of accountability once they are in office—especially in local elections, where your mayor is also your neighbor.
For now, keep in mind that despite the dire headlines about a few leaders who may have broken the rules, Lawrence is like cities everywhere, filled with honest, hard-working people who want the best for their families and their community and who, because of some additional challenges not everyone faces, may need some changes to the system so their voices can be heard.
