Worcester election commissioners find School Committee candidate Ashley Spring ineligible for November ballot over residency

The Worcester Board of Election Commissioners on Tuesday determined that School Committee candidate Ashley Spring is not eligible to be placed on the Nov. 4 ballot because she did not meet the one-year residency requirement set by the city charter.

The decision followed a resident’s challenge to Spring’s candidacy and testimony and documents presented by the candidate and elections staff. The board voted 5–0 that Spring did not meet the residency requirement for the November election.

City Solicitor Alexandra Calcuttas told the commission that for purposes of eligibility the candidate’s domicile — the place intended as the primary home — is the controlling factor. “The domicile is your residence, as the Charter requires it,” Calcuttas said, and must be established a year prior to the election date.

Elections staff provided the commission a copy of Spring’s voter-registration system (VRS) records and a residential lease. Staff said Spring registered to vote in Worcester on March 11, 2025, and the VRS shows she voted in Bolton in the Nov. 5, 2024, state election. Spring provided a lease dated May 1, 2024, through April 30, 2026, for an address in Worcester, and she told the commission she maintained two residences during late 2024 and considered Bolton her primary address when she voted.

Spring told commissioners, “I lived primarily in Bolton at the time. However, I still resided at this address in Worcester.” The chair and other commissioners questioned timeline details; Spring said she considered Worcester her primary residence “shortly thereafter” — within a couple of weeks after the November election.

Commissioners discussed charter and statutory timing. Staff and the solicitor explained that because the city charter requires a candidate to have resided in the city for the year before the election date, a person who did not have Worcester domicile by the relevant one-year cutoff would not meet the charter’s residency requirement for the November ballot. The board then took a roll-call vote on the question, and each commissioner recorded a “no” response when asked whether the candidate met the charter’s residency criteria for placement on the Nov. 4 ballot.

The commission’s action was procedural: it determines whether a challenged candidate meets filing eligibility for the ballot. The city solicitor told the board that a person may run while employed by the school system but would need to cease that employment if elected; the solicitor described the eligibility and employment conflict as separate matters.

Spring said she plans to remain engaged and that she may run again in the future. The board did not specify an administrative appeal deadline during the meeting; the commission’s staff noted the decision was based on the materials and testimony presented at the hearing.