Massachusetts referendum ballot questions should be considered suspect until proven otherwise. They represent blunt tools to make end runs around the normal legislative process.
As imperfect as Massachusetts is in turning ideas into laws, our commonwealth has somehow managed to be one of the most prosperous states in the Union with the highest quality of life by many standards, including education, health care and the stewardship of our natural resources.
The legislative process is chock full of obstacles, flaws, peculiarities, special interests and tedium. It also involves rigor, refinement and competing interests to find balance through a 240-year-old democratic process.
Well-funded groups with self-interests at their heart often pull strings from behind the curtain to steer referendum ballots, seeking a direct-democracy path to achieve what our indirect democracy fails to yield.
As this year’s slate of ballot questions reflect, what can seem to be a simple and seemingly straightforward issue may have more complexity than meets the eye.
With all that in mind, here is my cheat sheet on the list of ballot questions Massachusetts voters will face on November 3.
Question 1. Yes!
The Massachusetts Legislature should definitely make their representatives and senators subject to the same public records laws the statehouse imposed on every town and municipal official in the state. Legislators will never in a million years oblige to the same standards without the mandate of a referendum vote.
Question 2. Yes.
Public defenders should have the right to collective bargaining, just as many other state public employees have. A No vote would put Massachusetts in the same league as Texas and Tennessee. Need I say more?
Question 3. No.
This is a close one.
Reasonable minds can disagree. My view is we should keep our existing two-party election process and not change it to the single all-inclusive “jungle primary” system, which is much more prone to the corrosive influence of big money. Financial backers of this ballot include some of Massachusetts’ wealthiest venture capitalists. Label me dubious, though it would be fun to be part of the exotic sounding jungle primary. i would, however, be in favor of rank-choice voting, which is not on this year’s ballot.
Question 4. Yes.
We should allow same-day registration for Massachusetts voters. I mean, duh. The Republican Party of Massachusetts opposes this measure, supposedly because the measure will open the state to election fraud, putting them firmly in the those-who-smelt-it-dealt-it category.
Question 5. No.
Massachusetts should maintain its financial flexibility in determining the allocation of tax revenue. The state has consistently done an excellent job in managing its finances, squirreling money away for rainy days ahead, while at the same time responsibly allocating funds for education, health care, local aid, and all the other realms of public service. Plus, the proposal is super complicated, making it difficult to understand all the implications. I don’t trust it.
Question 6. No.
“No?????” I hear many friends in the natural conservation movement questioning me. How could I, who supports every penny spent on the natural world, oppose creating a discrete Nature For All Fund dedicated to conservation initiatives. This measure adds no funds to steward our natural world, but rather earmarks existing taxes on sporting goods to br dedicated to the fund overseen by a new 15-person commission including ten unspecified members.
It’s hard to understand why this is even a question when you consider what an amazing, comprehensive job our state does in conserving our natural world. Why create this redundant bureaucracy to do what the Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs already does through the state’s general operating fund?
Put me down as suspicious that moneyed interests in the environmental world are looking for a seat at the table to direct funds to their pet projects.
Question 7. No.
Zoning is a local prerogative and should stay that way. Compelling every municipality to allow single-family houses be built on 1/8th-of-an-acre residential lots is an overreach in achieving an admirable goal.
Finding myself on the same side as the Republican Party on this one. Ugh.
Question 8. Yes.
No, I am not in favor of criminalizing dozens of responsible adult friends who enjoy the recreational benefits of cannabis.
This ballot question will pass, so I am taking this opportunity to make a point. The implementation of the cannabis legalization ballot from nearly a decade ago has been a complete mess, failing miserably on the public health implications of the measure. Despite the evangelizing claims of the cannabis industry, marijuana represents a threat to the developing brains of our young people. Psychosis is a real risk, and so is addiction.
Massachusetts is MISSING IN ACTION in protecting our young people from the health ramifications and the industry opposes efforts to do anything otherwise.
Question 9. Yes.
Independent Congressional candidate Nadia Milleron makes a strong case that the repeal of the state’s most recent gun legislation is warranted because it criminalizes some legitimate gun collectors and would up the cost of gun safety requirements. (Listen to the From the Gazebo podcast episode with Millerson, where she makes this argument.) These adjustments, however, can be amended through the normal legislative process. No need to chuck out the entire legislation for these correctible items.
****
For additional context, here are the Village Green’s neutral explainers on:
