ORLEANS — Until they saw the roadside signs urging them to “Vote NO Question 7,” most Outer Cape voters had no idea there was a seventh question on the Nov. 5 ballot.

The nonbinding public policy question, which appears only on ballots in the seven towns of the 4th Barnstable District of the Mass. House, asks if the district’s state representative should “be instructed to vote in favor of legislation” to support offshore and onshore wind power development in Massachusetts.

John Leonard is the person who gathered the signatures to put the question on the ballot. He lives in Hingham and told the Independent, “I’m purely a citizen with no economic interest in wind power.” He said he chose the 4th Barnstable District for its proximity to proposed wind energy leasing sites in the Gulf of Maine and growing local resistance to offshore wind. “This is where all the agitation about wind power and whales is happening,” he said.

Leonard’s is a one-man effort with no budget, but it has spawned an anonymous “vote no” campaign, branded as “Save Cape Cod,” that has thus far not registered with the state as required under political finance law.

Fighting ‘Dark Money’

Leonard, 66, introduced a similar ballot question in 2008 on the South Shore, where about 82 percent of voters across four districts supported wind energy development.

After reading a 2023 report from Brown University’s Climate and Development Lab mapping the “anti-offshore wind network,” Leonard said, he decided to measure support for wind energy again. “I’m out to fight the out-of-state dark money,” he said, referring to the Brown report’s mention of secretive political spending tied to the fossil fuel industry.

According to Debra O’Malley, communications director for the secretary of the Commonwealth, any person can pick up blank petitions for a nonbinding public policy question and start collecting signatures. The person does not have to live in the district where the voting will take place or be a registered voter.

O’Malley emphasized that such questions are essentially polls on specific issues. “The results of this question have no legal impact,” she wrote in an email.

In June, Leonard showed up at the transfer stations in Orleans and Harwich to gather signatures. He said he chose those towns because they have more conservative voters than others in the district, which also includes Chatham, Eastham, Wellfleet, Truro, and Provincetown, and he wanted to gauge support for wind energy across the political spectrum.

In one weekend, Leonard collected the requisite 200 signatures to get the question added to the ballot. The town clerks in Orleans and Harwich certified that the signers were registered voters.

Four Orleans voters whose names appear on Leonard’s petition confirmed their signatures last week but said they did not know what Question 7 was about or recall exactly when they had signed.

“I must have signed it thinking I was doing the right thing,” said Timothy Murphy, 64.

“At the time, I thought the wind fields were what we needed,” said retired Orleans Fire Chief Raphael Merrill, 79. Now he has doubts related to wind turbine blades breaking, potential effects on fishermen, and the costs of development.

Though he supports alternative energy, Alvin Ruttgers, 86, agreed that the Vineyard Wind blade breakage in July concerned him. “It sounds good, and it looks good, but does it really work?” he asked.

Shirley Wladar, 83, didn’t recall signing the petition but said she had already voted yes on Question 7 to encourage alternative energy on the Cape.

An Unregistered Campaign

The “Save Cape Cod” campaign opposing Question 7 is visible online and in signs along Route 6. No sponsor or funder is named on the campaign website, which claims it is “non-partisan and self funded.”

Jason Tait, communications and education director for the Mass. Office of Campaign and Political Finance, told the Independent that no ballot question committee opposing Question 7 had registered with that office.

State law requires committees supporting or opposing a legislative district question to disclose their funding if “money is raised or spent, and whether those resources are pooled by two or more individuals or groups,” Tait wrote in an email. Save Cape Cod has until Nov. 5 to disclose its funding if it was organized on or after Oct. 16, he added.

Save Cape Cod does not appear to be connected to local efforts opposing offshore wind or Question 7. Truro resident Elena Rice, whose Change.org petition to stop offshore wind leases in the Gulf of Maine is linked on Save Cape Cod’s website, told the Independent that she did not know who was behind it.

Republican Christopher Lauzon, who is challenging incumbent state Sen. Julian Cyr and strongly opposes offshore wind, said that he is not involved with Save Cape Cod but encourages people to vote no on Question 7.

“The biggest problem is that the question kind of came out of nowhere,” said Lauzon. “Nobody knew this was going to be on the ballot until a couple of weeks ago.”

Truro resident Dennis O’Brien also said he is voting no. “The way I interpret this question is that it’s going to give the politicians more decision-making authority at the expense of the voters,” he said.

“The legislature has no role in awarding contracts to developers of offshore wind,” said Cyr, noting that the governor would ultimately make those awards. “The outcome of the presidential election is more likely to determine whether proposed lease sites move forward.”

Both Cyr and Hadley Luddy, who is running unopposed to succeed Sarah Peake as District 4 representative, said they would vote yes on Question 7 because wind energy is key to the state’s renewable energy future. They encouraged constituents to do the same. But Cyr added, “It’s a deceptive question.”

Paul Benson contributed reporting.

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article, published in print on Oct. 31, reported that Senate candidate Christopher Lauzon said he would vote no on Question 7. Lauzon votes in the 5th Barnstable District, where Question 7 is not on the ballot; he said he encourages 4th District residents to vote no on the question.