1. State Auditors Authority to Audit the Legislature
a. Summary
Massachusetts voters elect a state auditor every four years. But despite the word “audit” in the job title, the auditor isn’tfocused on financial irregularities; instead, they ensure that state agencies follow existing laws and regulations.
The auditor has substantial powers, including broad, court-supported access to all manner of documents and records. But there are limits to this investigative power, and Question 1 on the November ballot is about expanding those limits.
Question 1 asks voters whether the auditor should be allowed to investigate the state legislature, overseeingand evaluating at least some of its activities.
The ballot question is being advanced by the current auditor, Diana DiZoglio, and is generally opposed by the legislature.
Other states, experts and advocates on both sides of the issue conclude:
• Some legislative activities are off-limits to executive interference, including from the auditor. Votes, debates, committee assignments, policy priorities — these are all “core legislative functions” that the Massachusetts auditor will not be able to examine even if Question 1 passes.
• Other legislative activities might be subject to audit, such as compliance with employee training rules, cybersecurity norms, and purchasing practices.
• While auditors in other states occasionally investigate such non-core activities, they rely on cooperation from legislators. Looking around the country, there are noexamples of legislative audits conducted without lawmakers’ consent.
Even if Question 1 passes, legislators will have a lot of leverage to resist investigations. They might drag their feet, refuse to comply, or use their budgetary power to handcuff or even defund the auditor’s office. If that happens, the fight may shift to the courts, where the outcome is hard to predict.
A YES VOTE would specify that the State Auditor has the authority to audit the Legislature.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to the State Auditor’s authority.
WRTC recommends a ‘Yes’ vote.
2. Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation Requirement
a. Summary
To graduate from a public high school in Massachusetts, students need to meet the requirements of their local school district and also receive a “competency determination” from the state. By far the most common way to get this state sign-off is to pass the 10th grade MCAS exams. It was instituted as a means primarily to ensure that a diploma from a Massachusetts high school reflects a basic level of competence in core subjects.
Ballot Question 2 would greatly diminish the state’s role as a gatekeeper to high school graduation.
If Question 2 passes, students would still need to take the 10th grade MCAS exams, but they would no longer need to earn a passing score or other state approval. Instead, districts would set their own criteria for graduation, informed by state educational standards but not beholden to any particular state assessment.
This shift would empower local school districts, classroom teachers, town officials, and individual communities, allowing for more tailored measures of student achievement.
But Question 2 would also make Massachusetts one of the few states without a common graduation standard, allowing separate educational expectations in over 300 school districts across our state.
Relevant research, experts and advocates on both sides of the issue believe:
• The MCAS requirement rarely prevents students from getting a diploma; virtually all students who meet district standards also pass the MCAS or otherwise earn a state competency determination. In any given year, there are several hundred exceptions, amounting to less than 1 percent of high school seniors.
• Question 2 would dramatically lower the stakes of the 10th grade MCAS, potentially freeing teachers to focus less on test prep and more on knowledge and skills that fall outside of test parameters.
• Letting districts set graduation requirements could make it hard to maintain educational standards across the state. Districts with poor or falling graduation rates would be tempted to compensate by lowering expectations.
• Students with cognitive disabilities and English language learners sometimes struggle with the MCAS and could benefit most from more flexible measures of graduation readiness.
A YES VOTE would eliminate the requirement that students pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) in order to graduate high school but still require students to complete coursework that meets state standards.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to the requirement that a student pass the MCAS in order to graduate high school.
WRTC recommends you vote your conscience.
3. Unionization for Transportation Network Drivers
a. Summary
Under current law, Uber and Lyft drivers in Massachusetts cannot readily form unions. Question 3 on the November ballot would change that, creating a novel path to unionization for rideshare drivers.
The approach envisioned by Question 3 — called sector-based bargaining — would allow drivers across multiple companies to negotiate together for better pay, expanded benefits, and other protections that would then apply across the entire rideshare industry.
But sector-based bargaining is largely untested in the United States and likely to face serious legal challenges.
Evaluating the framework of Question 3 and the opinions of experts and advocates on both sides of the issue find:
• This ballot question covers workers who transport passengers using platforms like Uber and Lyft, not gig workers who provide food delivery or other services.
• The explicit goal of Question 3 is to improve the welfare of drivers. “These persons often suffer poor pay, inadequate health coverage, and irregular or inadequate working hours,” the ballot measure says, and the point of unionization is to “raise standards for the terms and conditions of work in this industry.”
• Question 3 would likely increase the cost of rides and curtail usage. This would limit some of the known benefits of the apps, including reduced drunk driving and expanded mobility options.
• Drivers may not be able to start forming unions right away. When the city of Seattle pursued a similar proposal in 2015, it was challenged in court and ultimately gutted.
• Sector-based bargaining requires a complex and detailed regulatory framework. And some of the minute regulatory choices could prove pivotal. As an example, the number of drivers needed to create a union is very low — roughly 12.5 percent — which simplifies organization but risks the emergence of an unpopular union with limited driver support.
A YES VOTE would provide transportation network drivers the option to form unions to collectively bargain with transportation network companies regarding wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of work.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to the ability of transportation network drivers to form unions.
WRTC recommends you vote your conscience.
4. Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances
a. Summary
After decades in the medical shadows, psychedelic drugs are increasingly being used in clinical research, mental health treatment, and self-care.
Is it time for Massachusetts to legalize some psychedelics and set clear rules for therapeutic and personal use? This is the choice at the heart of Question 4 on the November ballot.
Question 4 would allow a group of naturally occurring psychedelic drugs — psilocybin, psilocyn, mescaline, DMT, and ibogaine — to be grown, shared, used at home, and offered by licensed professionals in a more clinical setting.
A review of the details of this proposal, relevant research on psychedelics, advocates, and experts involved with similar efforts in other states conclude that:
• Psilocybin shows promise as a treatment for some serious mental health conditions, including anxiety among patients with terminal illnesses. Less is known about other psychedelics, but there is widening interest in their potential positive effects.
• Psychedelics are associated with some substantial harms. For instance, ibogaine can cause acute cardiac problems, while DMT (used in ayahuasca) may have lasting neurological effects. Risks seem more muted with psilocybin (found in “magic mushrooms”) and mescaline (the active ingredient in peyote), but these drugs can still trigger significant adverse reactions, especially for those with pre-existing mental health issues.
• Unlike marijuana, psychedelics would not be available for purchase at retail shops. Interested adults will need to grow their own, find a person willing to share, or use at a licensed psychedelic therapy center.
• Treatment at psychedelic therapy centers would likely be expensive, encouraging more at-home and personal use, where the lack of guidance and oversight brings heightened risk.
• Colorado and Oregon have already legalized some psychedelics. However, Question 4 has a broader scope, including allowing a wider range of drugs to be offered in therapy centers.
• Federal authorities consider all of these drugs illegal, so passing Question 4 could put Massachusetts at risk of a future federal backlash.
A YES VOTE would allow persons over age 21 to use certain natural psychedelic substances under licensed supervision and to grow and possess limited quantities of those substances in their home, and would create a commission to regulate those substances.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the law regarding natural psychedelic substances
WRTC recommends you vote your conscience.
5. Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers
a. Summary
Minimum wage laws work differently for waitstaff, bartenders, manicurists, and others who rely heavily on tips. These workers are still guaranteed the full minimum wage, currently $15 per hour in Massachusetts, but their employers can pay them as little as $6.75 per hour, provided that tips make up the difference.
Question 5 on this year’s ballot would phase out this $6.75 “tipped minimum wage” in Massachusetts, requiring employers to directly cover the full minimum wage of their tipped workers by 2029.
Wait staff could still collect tips under Question 5, but restaurants would be allowed to pool and share those tips with cooks, bookkeepers, and other workers who don’t interact directly with customers. That’s not permitted under current rules but is common in states without a tipped minimum wage.
Reviewing the text of this proposal, evaluating relevant research on tipped wages around the country, and opinions of various experts and advocates find that:
• Eliminating the tipped minimum wage would likely increase earnings for waitstaff, bartenders, and other tipped workers.
• Restaurants and other tip-dependent businesses will face higher costs from having to cover the full minimum wage. They will likely compensate with a mix of price increases, new service fees, reduced hiring, and potentially lower profits.
• Allowing tips to be shared with kitchen staff could help equalize pay between front- and back-of-house workers. However, this provision has generated opposition from some servers who prefer the current system.
• The District of Columbia is phasing out its tipped wage, leading to experimentation among restaurants and a broad conversation among diners about the appropriate role and size of tips.
• Tipped workers in the state oppose this question because it would distribute pooled tips to other non-management workers who don’t interact directly with customers.
A YES VOTE would increase the minimum hourly wage an employer must pay a tipped worker to the full state minimum wage implemented over five years, at which point employers could pool all tips and distribute them to all non-management workers.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the law governing tip pooling or the minimum wage for tipped workers.
WRTC and MAGOP recommend a ‘No’ vote.
Leave a Reply