Massachusetts voters will weigh in on five ballot questions in November, with the topics ranging from government oversight to education requirements. NBC10 Boston's Kwani Lunis sat down with NBC10 Boston Political Commentator Sue O'Connell to break down what a yes or no vote means for each question and the significance of each decision.
Question 1: Should the office’s investigative powers expand to include oversight of Legislature?
WATCH ANYTIME FOR FREE
 |
>Stream NBC10 Boston news for free, 24/7, wherever you are. |
The background: This question came out of an effort led by Mass. State Auditor Diana DiZoglio who campaigned on the issue, who wants to be able to investigate state Legislature, overseeing and/or evaluating some of its activities.
There are no examples in the US of legislative audits conducted without lawmakers' consent.
Get updates on what's happening in Boston to your inbox. Sign up for our >News Headlines newsletter.
If passed, it would make some legislative activities subject to audit (including compliance with employee training rules, cybersecurity norms and purchasing activities). It would not give the auditor the power to examine votes, debates or communications, nor assignments and policy. Legislators would still have a lot of leverage to resist investigations.
Supporters say more investigative powers would lead to better accountability and transparency.
Opponents say that legislators are opposed to expanding auditor’s powers, with State Senate President Karen Spilka saying its redundant and there is already oversight.
Local
In-depth news coverage of the Greater Boston Area.
Question 2: Should Massachusetts eliminate the 10th grade MCAS exam graduation requirement?
The background: Currently, public high school students must meet grad requirements and receive a "competency determination" to graduate. The most common way to get this is to pass the 10th grade MCAS exams. The ballot questions come as recent MCAS scores continue to show signs of learning loss due to the pandemic.
If passed, students would still need to take 10th grade MCAS but would no longer need to earn a passing score or other state approval. Instead, districts would set their own criteria for graduation, making Massachusetts one of the few states without a common graduation standard. It would lead to separate educational expectations across the 300+ school districts in the Commonwealth.
Supporters say this reduces the state’s role as gatekeeper to high school graduation, empowers districts, teachers, and communities to craft measures of student achievement, frees teachers to focus less on teaching to the test, and benefits special needs students who sometimes struggle with the MCAS.
Opponents say this could make it hard to maintain educational standards across the state, and point out the MCAS requirement rarely prevents students from getting a diploma. In any given year, there are several hundred exceptions (<1% of high school seniors)
Question 3: Should rideshare drivers be able to unionize?
The background: This law would cover drivers who use platforms like Uber or Lyft to transport passengers, not gig workers such as food delivery services. Unionization efforts historically face uphill battle in courts (In 2015 a Seattle effort lost its court battle). That's because sector-based bargaining is largely untested in US and likely to face legal challenges. It requires a complex and detailed regulatory framework. Under this law, the number of drivers needed to create a union is very low — roughly 12.5%.
If passed, it would allow for sector-based bargaining. Drivers across multiple companies could negotiate together for better pay, expanded benefits and other protections that would apply across the industry.
Supporters say this would improve the welfare of drivers.
Opponents say it would likely increase the cost of rides and curtail usage, meaning it would limit some benefits of the apps, such as reduced drunk driving and increased mobility options.
Question 4: Should Massachusetts legalize some psychedelics and set rules for therapeutic/personal use?
The background: Psychedelic drugs are increasingly used in clinical research, mental health, and self-care efforts.
If passed, the law could 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. It would not make psychedelics available for purchase at retail shops. Adults would need to grow their own, find someone willing to share their supply, or use at a licensed psychedelic therapy center.
Supporters say psilocybin shows promise as a treatment for some serious mental health conditions and the Massachusetts ballot question would allow a wider range of drugs to be offered in therapy centers.
Opponents say psychedelics are associated with substantial harms. Drugs can trigger significant adverse reactions, especially for those with pre-existing mental health issues. And treatment at psychedelic therapy centers would likely be expensive, encouraging more at-home or personal use, lacking oversight. They also note the federal government views all these drugs as illegal, so passing Question 4 could put the commonwealth at risk for federal backlash.
The background: Currently minimum wage laws vary for waitstaff, bartenders, manicurists and other types of tipped workers. Tipped workers are guaranteed the full minimum wage ($15/hr), but employers can pay them as little as $6.75 per hour, provided that tips make up the difference.
If passed, restaurants would be allowed to pool or share tips with cooks, bookkeepers, and others who don't interact directly with customers. This is not allowed under current rules. Wait staff could still be tipped.
Supporters say eliminating "tipped minimum wage" would likely increase earnings for tipped workers. Allowing tips to be shared with kitchen staff could help equalize pay between front and back-of-house workers.
Opponents say some servers prefer the current system. Restaurants and other tip-dependent businesses will face higher costs from having to cover the full minimum wage, which would likely lead to a mix of price increases, new service fees, reduced hiring and potentially lower profits.
