From rideshare to shrooms, Massachusetts ballot initiatives amplify the public voice.
Don’t expect much suspense on election day in Massachusetts. The Bay State is so reliable, and so reliably Blue, that not a single incumbent member of the House of Representatives (all nine of which are Democrats) even faced a primary challenger. Only four now face challengers in the general election, all of whom are extreme long shots. For the Presidency, the Boston Globe’s October 1st – 5th polling has Vice President Harris up 61% to 32% over Former President Trump. Most pollsters don’t even bother surveying Massachusetts – everyone knows the outcome from the start. So why bother?
One reason to care are ballot initiatives. Ballot initiatives (often referred to as referenda or ballot measures) are questions placed directly before voters on state and local ballots. Since the 1970s, referenda have commonly focused on reproductive rights, same sex marriage, and marijuana legalization. In 2020, five states passed marijuana legalization ballots. Colorado voters voted against a 22-week abortion ban (Proposition 115), while 62% of Louisiana voters supported a state constitution amendment limiting abortion protections (Proposed Amendment No. 1). And Mississippi got a new state flag.
Ballot measures can catalyze statewide change and spark national dialogue. In 1978, California passed Proposition 13, dramatically reshaping the state’s tax system. In response to rapidly increasing property taxes, 65% of voters supported a state constitution amendment to reduce them: property taxes would be capped at 1% of assessed value and future increases limited to 2% per year. Proposition 13’s victory provoked a nationwide tax policy debate and several comparable ballot measures, including Massachusetts’ 1980 Proposition 2 ½ (which was highly contentious on Platform 9 ¾). The tradeoff between tax cuts and public services like education are still debated, but the point remains: ballot measures matter.
On November 5th, citizens across 41 states will vote on 147 statewide ballot measures. A record 12 measures relate to reproductive rights, and a record 11 more cover reforms to the electoral system. For instance, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon will vote on adopting Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), while Alaska will vote on repealing it. What about Massachusetts?
Five questions are on the 2024 ballot in Massachusetts: (1) auditing of the state legislature, (2) standardized testing in high schools, (3) a union for rideshare drivers, (4) legalizing psychedelics, and (5) minimum wages for tipped workers. Without personally opining, I’ll summarize what’s at stake and share the official “In Favor” and “Against” arguments distributed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
Question 1: State Auditor’s Authority to Audit the Legislature
A “Yes” vote would expand the ability of the state auditor, elected every four years, to investigate the state legislature – not its core legislative functions, but financials and processes like purchasing, cybersecurity, and employee training. To her credit, state auditor Diana DiZoglio is literally walking 141 miles from the Berkshires to Boston to advocate for the proposition.
In Favor: “The State Auditor is independently elected by the people of Massachusetts to audit every state entity to help make government work better. The State Legislature is the only state entity refusing to be audited by the State Auditor’s office. Legislative leaders claim it is sufficient for the Legislature to conduct audits of itself through a procured private vendor. However, the Massachusetts Legislature is continuously ranked as one of the least effective, least transparent legislatures in America and is one of only four legislatures that exempts itself from public records laws. Support for this initiative will help the State Auditor’s office shine a bright light on how taxpayer dollars are spent to help increase transparency, accountability and accessibility for the people of Massachusetts.”
Against: “A legislative audit conducted by the State Auditor, who is an executive branch official, without the Legislature’s consent would violate the separation of powers and legislative supremacy described in and required by the Massachusetts Constitution. The performance audits conducted by the State Auditor measure administrators’ performance in achieving the legislatively determined goals of the public policies they administer. The State Auditor cannot substitute her interpretation of those goals for the Legislature’s without compromising the constitutional independence and preeminence of the Legislature. If enacted Question 1 would make the State Auditor into a political actor and a potentially influential participant in the legislative process, two roles that would clearly compromise the State Auditor’s ability to carry out her fundamental constitutional duty to conduct credible, independent, objective, and non-partisan audits of state government departments and programs.”
Question 2: MCAS Graduation Requirement
A “Yes” vote would reduce the state’s role in managing public high school graduation – 10th grade students would still need to take the MCAS standardized test, but they would not need to pass. Local school districts would set their own graduation criteria.
In Favor: “A Yes on Question 2 gives all students the opportunity to thrive and reach their full potential. We all agree that high standards help keep our public schools great, and assessments are needed to ensure that students master the knowledge and skills to succeed in life after high school. However, the MCAS is a one-size-fits-all exam that fails to measure other student achievement measures such as GPA, coursework, and teacher assessments in determining if a student is allowed to graduate. Replacing the MCAS graduation requirement with more comprehensive measures will allow teachers to stop teaching to a test and unburden students from a make-or-break standardized test. Voting Yes will allow schools and teachers, together with parents and students, to focus on the most important skills and knowledge to help students succeed in life, rather than having to focus on only those skills that can be measured on a standardized test.”
Against: “Question 2 is unfair to kids and will increase inequality. Some school districts will just adopt lower standards so students ‘graduate’ even if they haven’t learned the knowledge and skills they need to succeed. It’s not fair to grant diplomas to kids who aren’t yet ready to graduate. If students cannot pass basic assessments in math, English, or science, we adults should do the hard work to get them up to speed. Instead of supporting kids, Question 2 would abandon them. Question 2 would remove our only statewide graduation standard. Massachusetts would have less rigorous high school graduation requirements than Mississippi and Alabama. Question 2 is a radical and untested proposal and should be rejected. Significant changes to our education system should be carefully studied, designed, and implemented by experts to ensure these policies are actually better for our kids.”
Question 3: Rideshare Drivers’ Union
A “Yes” vote would open a new pathway (“sector-based bargaining”) for rideshare drivers across multiple companies to collectively negotiate.
In Favor: “A YES vote will give Massachusetts rideshare drivers, who work for companies like Uber and Lyft, the option to join a union while also maintaining driver flexibility and independence. The option to join a union is guaranteed for most workers, but rideshare drivers currently don’t have that choice. Vote YES to allow rideshare drivers the option to choose a union.”
Against: “DRIVERS AND RIDERS URGE NO ON QUESTION 3. Question 3 would RAISE THE PRICES FOR ALL RIDERS, funding union pockets, not drivers’ pockets. This law gives Politicians the right to set rules with NO accountability and creates a new radical labor category that is inconsistent with federal labor law. Drivers in Massachusetts ALREADY receive: base of $32.50 per hour with yearly increases, paid sick leave, paid family medical leave, healthcare stipend, on-the-job injury insurance, anti-discrimination protections, domestic violence leave, anti-retaliation protections, and an appeals process. Question 3 does not really create bargaining for workers. Drivers will have no control over leadership of the union and will pay significant dues without real representation. This proposal is not fair to Drivers and allows just 2 ½ percent of drivers to force unionization and leaves many Drivers without a voice.”
Question 4: Legalizing Psychedelics
A “Yes” vote would make it legal to grow, possess, and use – under certain conditions – two substances found in mushrooms (psilocybin and psilocyn) and three substances found in plants (dimethyltryptamine, mescaline, and ibogaine).
In Favor: “Vote YES on 4 to provide safe, regulated access to promising natural psychedelic medicines for treatment-resistant PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Psychedelics will be available in approved therapeutic settings under the supervision of trained and licensed facilitators, NOT sold in stores to take home. Research from leading medical institutions including Mass General Brigham, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and Johns Hopkins shows that psychedelic medicines can be effective treatments for depression and anxiety. In fact, the FDA recently granted psilocybin a “breakthrough therapy” designation. For many people who are suffering, daily medications and other standard treatments aren’t working. Over 6,000 veterans die by suicide annually, and countless more struggle from service-related trauma. Natural psychedelic medicine can also offer patients with a terminal diagnosis relief from end-of-life anxiety and help them find peace. That’s why question 4 is supported by doctors, mental health providers, and veteran advocates. Vote YES to expand mental health options.”
Against: “MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, VETERANS, AND RECOVERY GROUPS URGE NO ON QUESTION 4. Question 4 would decriminalize psychedelics, open for-profit centers, allow for growth in a 12-foot by 12-foot area in homes and distribution statewide. A black market is inevitable with this amount of home growth. In recent years, driver’s license revocations for drugged driving rose 65% and fatal DUI crashes increased over 50%. With 1 in 3 frequent psychedelic users reporting driving under the influence of psychedelics in the past year, this will increase. The psychedelic ibogaine has life-threatening cardiotoxicity, heart failure can occur days after one dose. Accidental consumption of edibles is especially dangerous to children and pets. The centers aren’t required to be run by medical professionals, cannot provide critical care during adverse reactions, and aren’t prohibited from giving psychedelics to high-risk patients like those with schizophrenia, bipolar illness, and pregnant or breastfeeding women.”
Question 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers
A “Yes” vote would require employers to cover the full minimum wage (currently $15 per hour) for tipped workers. Today, tipped workers can be paid as little as $6.75 per hour by their employer, so long as tips cover the gap to $15. With the revised policy, waitstaff could still collect tips on top of their minimum wage, but restaurants could pool and split tips among a broader group of employees.
In Favor: “Vote Yes for FAIRNESS. It’s fair for Workers: Instead of being paid the current tipped worker wage of just $6.75 an hour, Massachusetts tipped workers deserve the full minimum wage with tips on top. Workers in 7 other states earn a full wage plus tips, and they enjoy robust tips and growing restaurants where menu prices are comparable to Massachusetts. This law would create greater financial stability and predictability, acknowledging workers’ skills and professionalism. It’s fair for Employers: Many Massachusetts small businesses are already paying the full minimum wage plus tips. Big restaurant corporations should do the same. This would reduce employee turnover and improve service quality. It’s fair for Consumers: Big restaurant corporations are not paying their fair share and are forcing consumers to cover their employees’ wages through tips. Tips should be a reward for good service, not a subsidy for low wages paid by large corporations.”
Against: “This question is funded by a radical group from California. Tipped employees have made it abundantly clear the way they earn money does not need to be changed. State and Federal law guarantee them the $15 hourly minimum wage with many earning over $40/hr and 90% reporting at least $20/hr. A recent survey also showed that 88% oppose ‘tip pools’ where tips are shared with non-service employees and 90% believe that if tipped wages are eliminated, they will earn less. Other attempts to implement this have seen catastrophic results. In Washington, D.C., nearly 10% of tipped employees have lost or left their jobs. This follows increases in menu prices, the implementation of 20% ‘service fees’ and a wave of closures. This would reduce overall wages for servers, increase costs for restaurants and skyrocket the cost of eating out. It will be disastrous with many neighborhood restaurants being forced to close.”
Ballot measures are one of America’s purest forms of direct democracy. If you collect enough signatures, you can get an issue on the ballot and, with voters’ support, accelerate the path to action by breaking through political gridlock. They’re not perfect – special interest groups can sway public opinion, and voters may be more likely to make uninformed decisions when voting on ballot measures than for elected officials. The issues are complex; it’s hard to know the second and third order implications. Not only that, but in many states ballot measures are not perfectly binding, and state legislatures could quickly work to block or repeal. So, I can’t guarantee that passing ballot measures should or will become lasting law. And, most importantly, isn’t the whole point of representative democracy that we elect other people to do this stuff for us? All fair points.
To me, though, it comes down to civic engagement – ballot measures are one reason I know my vote matters.
Tim Ford (MBA ’25) is originally from New Jersey. He graduated from the University of Virginia with degrees in Commerce and Spanish, and completed an M.Phil. in Latin American Studies at the University of Cambridge. Prior to the HBS MBA, Tim worked in growth equity in San Francisco.
Commentaires