By Beth David, Editor
In addition to voting for president of the United States, US Senator, and state offices, the voters of Mass. will face five ballot questions on November 5. Voters will vote on: giving the State Auditor the authority to audit the legislature; eliminating or keeping the MCAS as a high school graduation requirement; unionization for transportation network drivers (such as Uber and Lyft); limited legalization and regulation of certain natural psychedelic substances; minimum wage for tipped workers.
Question 1: Auditing the Legislature
A “yes” vote will expressly authorize the State Auditor to audit the legislature; a “no” vote will leave the law unchanged.
Arguing for passage, the Committee for Transparent Democracy states that the State Auditor is independently elected to audit every state entity. It notes that the Mass. Legislature is continuously ranked as one of the least transparent legislatures in the US, and is one of only four legislatures that exempts itself from public records laws.
Those against passage lean heavily on the argument that the law would violate the separation of powers and legislative supremacy required by the Mass. Constitution.
A majority report by the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions (Committee) strongly argues against the change saying it violates the foundational constitutional principle of separation of powers.
For more on the yes side, visit https://auditthelegislature.com; for more on the no side, visit https://www.masspoliticsprofs.org
The Committee has presented a report on each question in the ballot questions booklet produced by the Secretary of State. All voters should have received a copy, and a link to the booklet online is provided at the end of this article.
Question 2: Eliminating MCAS
Question 2 would eliminate the MCAS (Mass. Comprehensive Assessment System) test as a high school graduation requirement. A “yes” vote would eliminate the requirement; a “no” vote would leave the law as is.
Students will still have to demonstrate mastery of the skills, competencies, and knowledge contained in the state academic standards, but it would allow individual districts to determine how to certify that mastery.
The Mass. Teachers Association argues for a “yes” saying that the MCAS is a one-size-fits-all exam that fails to measure other student achievement measures. Getting rid of the MCAS will allow schools to focus on the most important skills and knowledge to help students succeed in life, rather than having to focus on only those skills that can be measured on a standardized test.
The group opposing the measure (Protect Our Kids Future: Vote No on 2) argues that some school districts will just adopt a lower standard so students will graduate. They argue that it is not fair to grant diplomas to students who are not ready to graduate. The MCAS is the only statewide standard, eliminating it would give Mass. less rigorous standards that Miss. and Ala. The group also argues that the change is a “radical and untested proposal,” and any significant changes to the educational system should be carefully studied.
The Committee recommends not passing the question, citing numerous education officials opposed to the change. The report notes that 99% of students are able to graduate by passing the MCAS or pursuing one of the alternative paths available.
Detractors of the MCAS say it has harmed the most marginalized students and creates a classroom filled with anxiety and stress.
Proponents maintain that elimination of the requirement will lead to more, not less inequity. They also state that the MCAS is an introduction to the world of certification and accountability for students.
The report notes that the Education Reform Act of 1993 established the current system. Prior to that, the state had no statewide curriculum standards and the quality of education varied widely from district to district.
For more on the yes side, visit https://massteacher.org/news/2024/07/question-2-yes; for more on the no side, visit https://www.votenoquestion2.org
Question 3: Unions for Rideshare Drivers
Question 3 would allow rideshare drivers (such as Uber and Lyft drivers) to unionize. A “yes” vote would provide drivers with the option to form a union; a “no” vote would make no change in the law. The law would require companies to bargain with unions on wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work..
United for Justice argues for the question saying that the change will give drivers the option to join a union while maintaining driver flexibility and independence. They argue that most workers have the option to join a union, but rideshare drivers do not.
Mass. Fiscal Alliance argues that the law will raise prices for all riders; allows politicians to set the rules with no accountability, and creates a “new radical labor category that is inconsistent with federal law.”
They also argue that drivers already receive $32.50 per hour with good benefits; they will have no control over leadership of the union; and the law leaves many drivers without a voice.
The Committee recommends not passing the question. The report notes that the law would only affect certain drivers, such as those working for Uber and Lyft, but not DoorDash.
The Report notes that the state is in a lawsuit to determine if the drivers should be classified as employees or keep them as independent con-tractors. There are also five initiatives in the legislature concerning that issue. If any pass, it could cause a conflict with the new law.
Members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) argued to the Committee that none of those initiatives should interfere with the right of drivers to unionize.
To learn more on the yes side, visit https://www.voteyeson3mass.com; for the no side, visit https://www.massfiscal.org/no-on-question_3
Question 4: Legalizing Psychedelics
Question 4 would allow persons 21 and older to possess, grow and use two natural psychedelic substances found in mushrooms, and three found in plants. They would be available for purchase at an approved location by licensed facilitator.
A “yes” vote would allow the change; a “no” vote would make no change in the law.
Mass. for Mental Health Options argues in favor of passage, saying that it would provide safe, regulated access to promising natural medicines for treatment-resistant PTSD, anxiety, and depression.
Traditional medications do not work for many people, and psychedelic drugs can help with end-of-life anxiety.
The Coalition for Safe Communities argues that a black market is inevitable; drugged driving and DUI have increased in recent years, and this will cause more incidents; the centers are not required to be run by medical professionals, and cannot provide care during adverse reactions.
The Committee recommends that the question not be adopted. Although it acknowledges the benefits of use for some mental health conditions when prescribed measured doses, there is no evidence that the “widescale recreational legalization of these substances would be beneficial, let alone safe.”
For more on the yes side, visit https://maformentalhealth.org; for more on the no side, visit https://safecommunitiesma.com
Question 5: Eliminating the Subminimum Wage
Question 5 would gradually increase the minimum hourly wage of tipped workers over five years, starting with 64% in 2025 up to 100% in 2029. The current minimum wage for tipped workers is $6.75/hour, also known as a “subminimum” wage; the minimum wage in Mass. for all other workers is $15/hour. The law would also allow employers to require employees to pool tips to be equally distributed to all employees, including non-tipped workers.
A “yes” vote would change the law and increase the wages of tipped workers; a “no” vote would leave the law unchanged.
One Fair Wage argues in favor of the law saying that workers “deserve the full minimum wage with tips on top.” They argue that workers in seven other states earn full wage and enjoy “robust tips” where prices are comparable to Mass.
They argue that big corporations are not paying their fair share while many small businesses already pay full minimum wage plus tips.
“Tips should be a reward for good service, not a subsidy for low wages paid by big corporations,” they write.
The Committee to Protect Tips argues that he question is funded by a “radical group from California.”
They argue many tipped workers earn $40/hour with 90% reporting at least $20/hour.
The group claims that implementing this has caused “catastrophic results” in Washington, DC, with many employees losing or leaving their jobs and the implementation of 20% service fees.
They argue it would reduce overall wages for servers, increase costs for restaurants and “skyrocket” restaurant prices.
The Committee recommends not enacting the law, saying that it does not have sufficient evidence of the impact it would have on the restaurant industry and workforce.
It also cited a lack of evidence concerning Washington, DC, which is phasing in the change (as cited above); or Maine, which is rolling back the raise; and the impact a 2023 law has had that requires employers to make up the difference in the subminimum wage and the minimum wage if tips were not sufficient to give servers a minimum wage.
The Committee cited several competing narratives and reporting. Most restaurant workers object to the requirement that tips be pooled and shared with “back-of-house” staff who do not interact directly with customers.
For more on the yes side, visit https://www.fairwageplustipsma.com; for the no side, visit https://www.protecttips.org
To learn more about ballot questions, visit https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ divisions/ elections/research-and-statistics/info-for-voters-2024.htm or contact your town clerk’s office for the ballot questions book.
View a sample ballot online at https://www.sec.state.ma.us/WhereDoIVoteMA/WhereDoIVote
•••
Click here to download the 10-24-24 issue: 10-24-24 HalloweenTrail
Support local journalism, donate to the Neighb News with PayPal
