Every two years, all Bay Staters temporarily become legislators for a day when facing a handful of ballot questions seeking to shape state law via direct democracy. Our assessment of every ballot question slate is guided by a constant guiding principle: We have a Legislature, which we the people staff via elections and fund with our taxes, where the critical and often complex work of crafting state law and policy should be localized. That is representative democracy — a system we should not upend wantonly.
We understand why the mechanism of ballot referendum exists as a crucial exception to that rule, allowing the public to directly petition for solutions to pressing issues that nevertheless face unique political barriers for consideration in the Statehouse. This ought to provide a backstop, not an end-run, to the normative legislative process, because there are downsides to this more haphazard approach to lawmaking. It squeezes multifaceted issues into simplistic yes-or-no formulations, relies on voters to be well-informed on those issues and their often hidden nuances, and increases special interest influence. We therefore apply a high burden of proof for a ballot question effort to demonstrate that it’s necessary to forgo the typical legislative process and shape state law via a simple up-and-down statewide plebiscite.
We underscore this not only to give readers context for the frame through which we view ballot measures but to highlight what we view as a concerning trend in the practice of state lawmaking.
We’re worried that ballot questions are seemingly becoming less exceptional as the number of policy-crafting decisions put directly to Massachusetts voters has risen of late. In 2020, there were two. In 2022, there were four. This year, voters face five — the most in more than two decades. A question we consistently ask ballot measure proponents is why they haven’t lobbied their issue to lawmakers. A consistent answer across the myriad campaigns has been that those efforts have run up against a do-nothing Legislature — an answer that unfortunately carries considerable weight amid swelling sclerosis and waning productivity on Beacon Hill. The big batch of ballot questions facing voters this election season is only more evidence of that.
Yes on Question 1: State Auditor’s Authority to Audit the Legislature
This question is a textbook example of a ballot measure that is obviously appropriate for the ballot rather than the typical route of consideration by the Legislature. That is because it directly involves the Legislature itself. It’s no surprise that lawmakers don’t want to be audited. Yet the point of the State Auditor’s Office is to hold our state’s institutions accountable. The Legislature, one of the most important institutions to the function of our state’s governance, shouldn’t be able to dodge that accountability.
Legislative leaders suggest an independent audit is unnecessary because the Legislature audits itself; no other office of state government could get away with such an absurd excuse, and the Legislature shouldn’t be able to, either. The other argument from legislative leaders is that such an audit would present a separation of powers problem. Yet there is not only established precedent for the State Auditor’s Office (which is a part of the executive branch) to audit the state judiciary (another branch) — there’s also already precedent for a state auditor probe of the Legislature, which has occurred several times since the auditor’s office was established in the 19th century. Those precedents did not result in state constitutional crisis or major disruption to state governance, and there’s no reason to think a new audit would.
As we have repeatedly warned, Massachusetts’ state government has a serious transparency problem. Auditing the Legislature wouldn’t completely erase that troubling opacity, but it would be a big step toward disinfecting sunlight and away from needless official secrecy for our commonwealth.
The Eagle endorses a “yes” vote on Question 1.
Yes on Question 2: Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation Requirement
Bubble Sheet Test with Pencil, shallow focus on pencil.
The constituents most affected by the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System aren’t yet old enough to vote on this question, which behooves us to carefully consider the impact of this ballot measure — and the status quo — on behalf of public school students. Here’s what we know about the status quo: It results in several hundred Bay State teenagers who meet their school district’s graduation standards still being denied a diploma each year because they failed a high-stakes standardized test. That’s a relatively small fraction of the state’s students. Still, it’s worth asking for what purpose those kids (disproportionately English-language learners and differently abled students) are being hamstrung.
It’s also worth weighing what other effects this paradigm carries for classrooms across the commonwealth. What about the teachers who are forced to teach to the test, which soaks up critical class time and bandwidth? What about the students who not only face the anxiety of that high-stakes test that can make or break their graduation prospects but are forced into targeted remedial programs for that test if they don’t pass it on first try, thereby limiting elective and vocational opportunities?
It’s important to note that this question does not ask whether to do away with the MCAS; standardized testing in Massachusetts is not going anywhere anytime soon. That’s good, because it can be a powerful diagnostic tool for assessing the state’s students and school districts. Defenders of the MCAS graduation requirement go a bit further in claiming that specific mechanism is causally linked to Massachusetts’ public education success. Yet they don’t seem to have an answer as to why that decades-old status quo has not resulted in any meaningful closing of the performance gaps between Bay State schools and districts exposed by the test itself. Again, that underscores the importance of the MCAS as a diagnostic tool for what’s working and what’s not in Massachusetts schools, but also highlights the shortcomings of the MCAS grad requirement to fairly effect the sort of positive change that its defenders claim. MCAS and other standardized testing should primarily be aimed at holding accountable our public school system writ large and the comparative performance of various school districts, not individual students’ achievements. The latter is already assessed thoroughly, via testing and other holistic approaches, that are only impinged by the high stakes of the MCAS grad requirement.
The Eagle endorses a “yes” vote on Question 2.
Yes on Question 3: Unionization for Transportation Network Drivers
The rise of Uber and Lyft has resulted in the disruption of a ride-hailing industry previously dominated by taxi services, but also a rapid increase in the number of workers who primarily support themselves and their families within the so-called “gig economy.” And drivers for these dominant ride-hailing apps have a considerably different employment experience than the average independent contractor to which some might analogize these workers. They have to maintain their own car while relying on shift activation from — and paying a significant fraction of their fares to — one of two companies that essentially have a duopolistic hold on the modern industry.
Question 3’s passage would allow Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize so that they could collectively bargain with the tech giants dominating a sector that is uniquely burdensome on the workers supporting it. Uber and Lyft take a considerable fraction of each driver’s fair, and that fraction has steadily risen over the years; many drivers who have made this their livelihood have seen drops in their take-home pay that result in them having to put in 60-, 70- or even 80-hour workweeks to continue getting by. And it’s not the easiest “gig” to simply walk away from, as many drivers invested in their vehicles — which they must pay to maintain and fuel — before their share of the fares began to shrink. Uber and Lyft are not compelled to be particularly responsive to legitimate grievances and concerns from drivers. A particularly big concern for drivers is the companies’ unbound latitude to deactivate drivers — effectively shutting them off from working and earning a living — without reason, warning or timeline for restoration.
For all these reasons and more, it makes sense to extend to these drivers the same right to unionize and collectively bargain with their employers that nearly all other Massachusetts workers have. Some might argue that an agreement struck earlier this year between the two ride-hailing companies and the state Attorney General’s Office to secure better pay and benefits for drivers would obviate the need for allowing drivers to unionize. What this development really underscored, though, is the reality that these workers need collective representation to secure dignity in a tough workspace and decent compensation from these powerful companies. It’s less than ideal, however, to rely on the AG’s Office to expend its limited bandwidth and taxpayer resources on this labor matter when a union would be the most appropriate entity to do so.
The Eagle endorses a “yes” vote on Question 3.
No on Question 4: Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances
While Question 1 exemplifies the sort of measure most appropriate for a ballot question, Question 4 seems a textbook example of legislative questions that should not be decided by simple referendum. We say “questions” because this measure, with by far the largest proposed law text for voters to sift through of all the questions this year, really presents two distinct and rather disruptive changes to state drug laws and mental health regulation, respectively.
And each component gives us pause. We’re all for exploring new ways to better treat those in the throes of conditions like PTSD and depression as well as debating sensible proposals for decriminalizing certain drugs to redirect law and order resources to more pressing matters. Yet there seems to be a contradiction at the core of the arguments offered by this measure’s proponents. They say these substances offer a great leap forward for treating certain mental health maladies — a claim, it must be noted, that is not definitively borne out by the current research record and regulatory standards — and that Massachusetts needs to provide regulated avenues to receive these psychedelic treatments with appropriate assessment and safe screening. Why then should we promote unregulated use by allowing anyone to grow 144 square feet of magic mushrooms in their basement if this question’s proponents believe we need careful screening and monitoring to avoid adverse effects and comorbidity risks, which can be substantial?
More concerning, the measure treats the regulation of the therapeutic facilities that would be spurred on by this question as an afterthought, merely calling for a commission that would work out those crucial details at a later date with little in the way of sensible guardrails like requiring a doctor to do the prescribing of these potentially beneficial but potent and as yet unproven “treatments.”
It’s unfair to ask voters to essentially answer two questions with one vote, though by our lights the prudent answer to both parts of this dual measure is obvious.
The Eagle endorses a “no” vote on Question 4.
No on Question 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers
Surely we aren’t the only ones experiencing “tipping fatigue,” and so we aren’t opposed to taking a hard look at modifying the legal and social parameters of this service-sector tradition whose long tradition belies some problematic factors for consumers and workers alike. This ballot measure, however, isn’t the wisest way to address this complex issue. The available data from other states that have eliminated the tip credit do show that servers tend to receive fewer tips but greater total compensation when such a policy is enacted. And it stands to reason that such a policy might mitigate the high turnover currently roiling the service industry as well as reduce the incentive and ability for employers to engage in the very real practice of wage theft, though there is less definitive data to support those two premises.
All that certainly calls for a close look at reforming wage laws for service sector employees — but that close look is best achieved by legislators at the state and federal level carefully studying the issue, not an up-or-down vote from a Bay State electorate bombarded by the special interests behind both sides of this question. The reality is that even the most ideal fix to the current paradigm will result in considerable disruption to the hospitality industry — something we do not and cannot take lightly here in the Berkshires. That does not mean this issue doesn’t warrant serious attention from lawmakers; it means that this haphazard approach via ballot referendum is not the right move at this juncture.
The Eagle editorial board endorses a “no” vote on Question 5.