Nathan Boudreau has a website. If you would like more information on his campaign. CLICK HERE.
Complete Details – Ballot Access Determination regarding Nathan Boudreau in State Representative Race
Gardner Magazine is publishing the letter sent to Nathan Boudreau by the State of MA regarding his failure to qualify for the primary ballot and examples of the errors noted. Letter page 1. Letter page 2. Examples of errors.
Gardner Magazine contacted Nathan Boudreau and here are his comments on the matter: “I appreciate the Secretary of State’s thorough explanation. The certification process exists for a reason, and the office applied it clearly. We had clerical errors on our papers, and there were signature issues on others. The support is there. The timeline wasn’t forgiving. I’m still evaluating next steps, but voters in this district deserve real choices in how their representation happens.”
Gardner Magazine’s Max and Maxine Rogers debate the fairness of the ballot disqualification. Max argues: “Strict adherence is absolutely essential.” Maxine argues it’s not fair: “Rigidly weaponizing clerical requirements elevates bureaucracy over voter intent.” Listen on any device, CLICK PLAY.
Following an official review by the Elections Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it was determined that Nathan Ryan Boudreau failed to qualify for ballot placement in the 2026 state primary. Although Boudreau submitted 161 certified signatures for the office of Representative in General Court for the Second Worcester District, only 110 were accepted as valid. This total falls short of the statutory requirement of 150 certified signatures. Furthermore, the candidate failed to file a required enrollment certificate. The enrollment certificate is used to officially verify that a candidate is a registered voter at their current address and fulfills the state’s strict party enrollment criteria such as confirming that a candidate has been enrolled in the party for 90 days before the filing deadline. Consequently, Boudreau’s name will not be printed on the state primary ballot.
The Elections Division identified significant technical deficiencies in the submitted nomination papers that prevented the counting of 51 signatures. Under General Laws chapter 53, section 45, nomination papers must explicitly state the candidate’s residence (including street and number), the office for which they are nominated, the political party, and the district name or number before any signatures are gathered.
The 51 rejected signatures were disqualified based on the following specific omissions across three sheets:
| Deficiency Category | Number of Signatures Affected | Specific Missing Information |
|---|---|---|
| Major Omissions | 18 | Street address; city or town of residence; office seeking; and district. |
| Residency Omissions | 15 | Street address; city or town of residence. |
| Location Omissions | 18 | City or town of residence. |
| Total Disqualified | 51 |
Legal Precedent for Disqualification: The Elections Division cited specific legal authorities to justify the rejection of these signatures:
- G.L. c. 53, § 45: Requires the candidate’s residence, office, party, and district to be stated on the papers before circulation.
- Garrison v. Merced (1992): Established that when a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, its plain language must be given effect.
- Sholley v. Secretary of the Commonwealth (2003): Specifically requires the name of the city or town of the candidate’s residence, in addition to the street name and number, to be included on nomination papers.
