2024 Massachusetts Ballot Questions

Image generated by AI

Vote by mail information:
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/voting-information/vote-by-mail.htm

Find your polling place:
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/WhereDoIVoteMA/WhereDoIVote

Polling hours:
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/voting-information/polling-hours.htm

Official voter guide (PDF):
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/download/research-and-statistics/IFV_2024.pdf
Other formats:
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/research-and-statistics/info-for-voters-2024.htm

The information posted below contains summarized information referenced from the official voter guide, mixed with some analysis and the opinion of the author. While great pains have been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information presented, the reader should do their own vetting by referencing official sources like the Secretary of State’s website on elections:

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/elections-and-voting.htm

The Ballot

The ballot this year is a long one! It consists of two pages, both of which are double-sided. Be sure to flip your ballot over on both pages.

Question 1: State Auditor’s Authority to Audit the Legislature

The official voter guide summary (click to view)

This proposed law would specify that the State Auditor has the authority to audit the Legislature.

On the surface, it seems simple. The voters are eager to see more accountability and transparency from the Massachusetts Legislature, which is infamous for a lack of transparency in particular. But the State Auditor is a member of the Executive Branch, raising concerns about the separation of powers. Legal experts predict quick court challenges should this question pass, which I predict it will.

I voted yes on this question, despite the likely successful court challenges to come. Even if this law is struck down, if it is passed with enough votes, it will highlight the will of the voters to see more transparency, and will jumpstart the conversation on how best to address the issue without violating the separation of powers.

Question 2: Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation Requirement

The official voter guide summary (click to view)

This proposed law would eliminate the requirement that a student pass the
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests (or other statewide or district-wide assessments) in mathematics, science and technology, and English in order to receive a high school diploma. Instead, in order for a student to receive a high school diploma, the proposed law would require the student to complete coursework certified by the student’s district as demonstrating mastery of the competencies contained in the state academic standards in mathematics, science and technology, and English, as well as any additional areas determined by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

MCAS has been controversial since it was implemented. I remember the scramble in High School to prepare for the test, and the life-changing consequences of not passing. Many feel there are issues with the test, including the one-size fits all mentality, the real life effect of teachers focusing more on “teaching to the test” than teaching useful knowledge that will help students succeed in real life, and the disparate effect on minority groups. Others insist there must be a uniform graduation standard. MCAS was originally created to address unequal and often inadequate local standards that varied from district to district.

I voted yes on this question. While the graduation requirement will be removed, students will still take the MCAS, which will give the state and districts valuable data on student progress. Some are concerned about the lack of a replacement uniform state-wide graduation requirement, but if we wait for there to be a perfect replacement, it will never happen.

Question 3: Unionization for Transportation
Network Drivers

The official voter guide summary (click to view)

The proposed law would provide Transportation Network Drivers (“Drivers”) with the right to form unions (“Driver Organizations”) to collectively bargain with Transportation Network Companies (“Companies”)-which are companies that use a digital network to connect riders to drivers for pre-arranged transportation-to create negotiated recommendations concerning wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Drivers would not be required to engage in any union activities. Companies would be allowed to form multi-Company associations to represent them when negotiating with Driver Organizations. The state would supervise the labor activities permitted by the proposed law and would have responsibility for approving or disapproving the negotiated recommendations. The proposed law would define certain activities by a Company or a Driver Organization to be unfair work practices. The proposed law would establish a hearing process for the state Employment Relations Board (“Board”) to follow when a Company or Driver Organization is charged with an unfair work practice. The proposed law would permit the Board to take action, including awarding compensation to adversely affected Drivers, if it found that an unfair work practice had been committed. The proposed law would provide for an appeal of a Board decision to the state Appeals Court. This proposed law also would establish a procedure for determining which Drivers are Active Drivers, meaning that they completed more than the median number of rides in the previous six months. The proposed law would establish procedures for the Board to determine that a Driver Organization has signed authorizations from at least five percent of Active Drivers, entitling the Driver Organization to a list of Active Drivers; to designate a Driver Organization as the exclusive bargaining representative for all Drivers based on signed authorizations from at least twenty-five percent of Active Drivers; to resolve disputes over exclusive bargaining status, including through elections; and to decertify a Driver Organization from exclusive bargaining status. A Driver Organization that has been designated the exclusive bargaining representative would have the exclusive right to represent the Drivers and to receive voluntary membership dues deductions. Once the Board determined that a Driver Organization was the exclusive bargaining representative for all Drivers, the Companies would be required to bargain with that Driver Organization concerning wages, benefits and terms and conditions of work. Once the Driver Organization and Companies reached agreement on wages, benefits, and the terms and conditions of work, that agreement would be voted upon by all Drivers who has completed at least 100 trips the previous quarter. If approved by a majority of votes cast, the recommendations would be submitted to the state Secretary of Labor for approval and if approved, would be effective for three years. The proposed law would establish procedures for the mediation and arbitration if the Driver Organization and Companies failed to reach agreement within a certain period of time. An arbitrator would consider factors set forth in the proposed law, including whether the wages of Drivers would be enough so that Drivers would not need to rely upon any public benefits. The proposed law also sets out procedures for the Secretary of Labor’s review and approval of recommendations negotiated by a Driver Organization and the Companies and for judicial review of the Secretary’s decision. The proposed law states that neither its provisions, an agreement nor a determination by the Secretary would be able to lessen labor standards established by other laws. If there were any conflict between the proposed law and existing Massachusetts labor relations law, the proposed law would prevail. The Board would make rules and regulations as appropriate to effectuate the proposed law. The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

This one’s A LOT! I don’t blame you if you couldn’t read the entire summary. This is a complex proposal with a lot of details. Some folks object to some of those details, like a union only needing approval from 25% of all voting members to become the exclusive bargaining entity for the drivers. But very basically, this law affords rideshare drivers the right to form unions and to negotiate with the rideshare companies that fall under the scope of this bill.

I voted yes on this question. I don’t like all the details, but these can be adjusted later as drivers and companies adjust to the new law. It is long past time to give these drivers the same rights that all other workers have, and I will not wait for the wording to be perfect.

Question 4: Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances

The official voter guide summary (click to view)

This proposed law would allow persons aged 21 and older to grow, possess, and use certain natural psychedelic substances in certain circumstances. The psychedelic substances allowed would be two substances found in mushrooms (psilocybin and psilocyn) and three substances found in plants (dimethyltryptamine, mescaline, and ibogaine). These substances could be purchased at an approved location for use under the supervision of a licensed facilitator. This proposed law would otherwise prohibit any retail sale of natural psychedelic substances. This proposed law would also provide for the regulation and taxation of these psychedelic substances. This proposed law would license and regulate facilities offering supervised use of these psychedelic substances and provide for the taxation of proceeds from those facilities’ sales of psychedelic substances. It would also allow persons aged 21 and older to grow these psychedelic substances in a 12-foot by 12-foot area at their home and use these psychedelic substances at their home. This proposed law would authorize persons aged 21 or older to possess up to one gram of psilocybin, one gram of psilocyn, one gram of dimethyltryptamine, 18 grams of mescaline, and 30 grams of ibogaine (“personal use amount”), in addition to whatever they might grow at their home, and to give away up to the personal use amount to a person aged 21 or over. This proposed law would create a Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission of five members appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer which would administer the law governing the use and distribution of these psychedelic substances. The Commission would adopt regulations governing licensing qualifications, security, recordkeeping, education and training, health and safety requirements, testing, and age verification. This proposed law would also create a Natural Psychedelic Substances Advisory Board of 20 members appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer which would study and make recommendations to the Commission on the regulation and taxation of these psychedelic substances. This proposed law would allow cities and towns to reasonably restrict the time, place, and manner of the operation of licensed facilities offering psychedelic substances, but cities and towns could not ban those facilities or their provision of these substances. The proceeds of sales of psychedelic substances at licensed facilities would be subject to the state sales tax and an additional excise tax of 15 percent. In addition, a city or town could impose a separate tax of up to two percent. Revenue received from the additional state excise tax, license application fees, and civil penalties for violations of this proposed law would be deposited in a Natural Psychedelic Substances Regulation Fund and would be used, subject to appropriation, for administration of this proposed law. Using the psychedelic substances as permitted by this proposed law could not be a basis to deny a person medical care or public assistance, impose discipline by a professional licensing board, or enter adverse orders in child custody cases absent clear and convincing evidence that the activities created an unreasonable danger to the safety of a minor child. This proposed law would not affect existing laws regarding the operation of motor vehicles while under the influence, or the ability of employers to enforce workplace policies restricting the consumption of these psychedelic substances by employees. This proposed law would allow property owners to prohibit the use, display, growing, processing, or sale of these psychedelic substances on their premises. State and local governments could continue to restrict the possession and use of these psychedelic substances in public buildings or at schools. This proposed law would take effect on December 15, 2024.

The summary on this question is also quite long. The details match closely with the cannabis limited legalization ballot initiative. While I would like this law and the cannabis law to be more permissive, it is a good start and can be expanded upon later. For this reason, I voted yes on this question.

Question 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers

The official voter guide summary (click to view)

This proposed law would gradually increase the minimum hourly wage an employer must pay a tipped worker, over the course of five years, on the following schedule:

• To 64% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2025;
• To 73% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2026;
• To 82% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2027;
• To 91% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2028; and
• To 100% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2029.

The proposed law would require employers to continue to pay tipped workers the difference between the state minimum wage and the total amount a tipped worker receives in hourly wages plus tips through the end of 2028. The proposed law would also permit employers to calculate this difference over the entire weekly or bi-weekly payroll period. The requirement to pay this difference would cease when the required hourly wage for tipped workers would become 100% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2029. Under the proposed law, if an employer pays its workers an hourly wage that is at least the state minimum wage, the employer would be permitted to administer a “tip pool” that combines all the tips given by customers to tipped workers and distributes them among all the workers, including non-tipped workers.

This law is simple. It eliminates the tipped minimum wage. Are you tired of tipping culture getting out of hand? This is step number one in getting rid of it! I strongly object to the part of this law that puts employers in control of the tip pool, but mandatory sharing of tips to back of house workers is long overdue.

Despite my objection to the employer control of the tip pool, I feel that this can be challenged in court while retaining the rest of the law, and I have always felt it is unfair for tipped workers to make a lower minimum wage and for back of house workers to very frequently not get any share of the tips. For these reasons, I voted yes on this question.


Comments

Leave a Reply