Massachusetts has spent more than $1.9 billion on emergency shelter for new arrivals over two years. The State Auditor calls the program's contracting "improper and unlawful." Question 4 invites federal funding cuts to Yarmouth on top of all of it — for a resolution that creates no new local right.
How to Vote NOYarmouth is a year-round town of about 22,000 registered voters. On May 19, those voters will be asked to approve a non-binding resolution that the federal government has — repeatedly, in 2025 — used as the trigger for placing towns on a sanctuary jurisdictions list and identifying their federal grants for "suspension and termination."
The resolution does not create a single new legal right. Equal protection regardless of immigration status is already binding under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, the Massachusetts Constitution's Article 106, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, and the Supreme Judicial Court's 2017 ruling in Lunn v. Commonwealth. Yarmouth Police Department already publishes the policy the resolution celebrates.
“Absolutely unacceptable.”
Governor Maura Healey, January 2025, on learning that CORI background checks she ordered after the March 2024 Rockland alleged child rape case did not actually happen at all shelter sites — for nearly a year. Read the full case →
The case for NO, in five lines
- The state has spent ~$1.96 billion on Emergency Assistance shelter over FY24 and FY25 — running 3x the FY22 baseline. See the numbers.
- The State Auditor found improper, unlawful, no-bid contracting — including $9.5M to a single food vendor in 8 months and a cab company charging the state $147 for a $5 ride. Read the audit.
- The Boston Globe documented 1,000+ serious incidents at MA shelters — a 788% rise in two years. See the incident log.
- Yarmouth Police already do everything the resolution asks. The resolution adds zero operational protection. See the claim.
- Concord is the proof. Concord passed a non-binding resolution in 2017. DHS placed Concord on the May 2025 sanctuary list anyway. Read the case study.
Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted two large-scale arrest operations in Massachusetts during 2025 — Operation Patriot in May–June and Operation Patriot 2.0 in September. Combined: more than 2,800 arrests, including alleged members of MS-13, Tren de Aragua, Trinitarios, and 18th Street gangs. 44kg methamphetamine, 5kg fentanyl seized.
See the documented recordThe documented record
Under Gov. Healey, state EA shelter spend ran roughly 3x the FY22 baseline. Most was authorized by emergency supplementals AFTER the spending happened.
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio found improper, unlawful no-bid procurement. $9.5M to one food vendor in 8 months. $147 cab rides.
670+ serious incidents at MA shelters in 2024 alone, including drug arrests, domestic violence, and rapes — per state records. ICE Operation Patriot made 1,400+ MA arrests.
Migrant families directed to sleep in Logan Airport baggage claim — including infants on the hard floor — until Healey banned it July 9, 2024.
Confirmed CDBG entitlement supports senior meals + housing. Inside the federal "suspension and termination" category.
Non-binding 2017 resolution. Town Manager publicly disclaimed sanctuary status. DHS listed Concord anyway in May 2025.
What the YES committee is selling
The mailer from the "Committee to Support Equal Protection" (P.O. Box 52, S Yarmouth) makes three specific claims about what Question 4 will and will not do:
- "Does not make Yarmouth a sanctuary city." Technically true. Operationally false. Concord proves it.
- "Does not impact federal funding." False as a risk statement. Two executive orders are aimed at jurisdictions with this exact language.
- "Does not affect police policy." Technically true — because Yarmouth PD already publishes the policy.
The unenrolled-voter pitch
Most Yarmouth voters are not registered Republicans or Democrats — they're unenrolled, and they make up the largest single voting bloc in this town. They are also the voters who pay attention to budgets, watch their property tax bill, and notice when a state government appropriates a billion dollars after the fact.
The pitch on Question 4 isn't a culture-war pitch. It's a budget pitch. The state above us spent two billion dollars on a program it didn't pre-authorize, and the State Auditor has just confirmed it was administered through improper procurement. The federal government is now cutting grants to towns that publicly endorse the underlying posture. Question 4 asks Yarmouth to volunteer for the cut list.
That math doesn't add up. Vote NO on May 19.