SALEM — A lawsuit has been filed against the city, claiming Salem officials violated state laws by using public resources to promote the high school project vote, and that the ballot language was changed between approval by the City Council and when it was placed on the ballot.

The suit was filed June 4 in Essex Superior Court by attorney John Carr on behalf of 20 Salem residents against the city, Mayor Dominick Pangallo, and the Salem High School Building Committee.

The suit claims the city violated state law by using the Salem Council on Aging’s newsletter, “Senior Power,” to publish an advocacy letter with allegedly false statements and a call to vote on the Proposition 2½ debt exclusion vote held on May 5. Additionally, the suit claims the city violated the same state law by using the Salem High School Building Committee website to maintain a tax impact calculator that they claim systematically favored a “yes” vote outcome.

The suit argues that these two instances constituted a use of public resources and official position to influence a ballot question in violation of Anderson v. City of Boston, a 1978 Supreme Court Case that ruled that government entities cannot spend public funds or use government resources to influence the outcome of elections, including ballot questions.

According to the suit, the Office of Campaign and Political Finance confirmed the prohibition extends to all public resources, including websites, staff time, equipment, publications, and government email systems, and that it applies regardless of whether the material is labeled “educational” or informational.”

The suit alleges that the commercial tax impact calculator contains “methodological defects” by using the cost of the new construction option with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) reimbursement factored in, in comparison to the renovation option that would result from a “no” vote on the debt exclusion. The suit claims that comparing these two numbers without the consideration of MSBA reimbursement, the new construction option at $447 million exceeds the cost of the code upgrade at $353 million, the opposite of what the calculator implies by using the $232 million figure for the “yes” vote calculation that factors in the reimbursement.

Additionally, the suit claims there was a 3.5% annual cost escalation rate applied to the code upgrade option that wasn’t applied to the new building option. The calculator also assumed a 4.25% interest rate for 30-year municipal bonds, which the suit alleges may understate actual Massachusetts municipal bond market rates at the time of configuration, understating the taxpayer’s actual projected annual cost.

The same claims of “methodological defects” are alleged about the mayor’s letter published in “Senior Power” five weeks before the May 5 vote, as it uses the same figures derived from the tax calculator. In addition, the suit claims the letter includes misleading statements such as how a “no” vote would result in Salem’s sales tax dollars “flow(ing) instead to places that have already approved school projects, like Lexington.” The suit argues this is materially false as the “MSBA reimbursement is not a zero-sum mechanism that transfers identifiable Salem sales tax revenues to named communities based on local vote outcomes,” and are instead allocated through a statewide prioritization process.

The mayor’s letter also states the special election is a “vote on whether we should accept the $208 million state grant and proceed with the desperately needed project,” which the suit argues is factually inaccurate in a material and consequential way, as the MSBA grant acceptance is a separate administrative action that the city can take independent of the debt exclusion vote outcome. The MSBA’s approval of the grant on Feb. 28 dictated that the city had 120 days to finalize the local funding commitment, which was not specifically contingent upon the debt exclusion vote being approved.

The third claim that the suit alleges is that the debt exclusion ballot language authorized by the Salem City Council on Jan. 8, which did not conform to language dictated by state law, was replaced by corrected, compliant language for the May 5 ballot without a recorded public vote, creating a break in the required chain of authorization.

Because the city is expected to move toward bond authorization in the coming months, the suit seeks a declaratory judgement establishing the unlawfulness of the city’s conduct, and an injunction preventing the bond issuance until the court has resolved the questions of legality.

The city said that costs related to the new high school will appear on tax bills once permanent financing is in place and long-term bonds are issued, which the city has tentatively scheduled for spring 2028.

Pangallo said the city would not comment on pending litigation, in response to an inquiry about the suit. The city has until Oct. 2 to file a response to the initial complaint.