2024 Massachusetts Ballot Measures

In addition to the presidential, congressional, state legislative, and local elections, Bay-Staters will vote on five ballot questions. In Massachusetts, people can propose laws and constitutional amendments with an initiative petition that must collect 75,000 signatures. Once they complete the signature and certification process, initiative petitions are voted on in statewide general elections held in even-numbered years. The five additional ballot questions in this election cycle cover a wide range of policies, each having groups and elected officials backing and opposing them. Let’s take a closer look at what each question is trying to accomplish. 

Question 1: Should the Auditor audit the legislature?

The first question on the ballot this election cycle centers around the state auditor’s authority to complete audits of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Senate. Currently, due to the separation of powers within the state government, the auditor, within the executive branch, does not have the power to audit the legislative branch. Instead, the legislature itself performs its own internal audits, a process many have critiqued as contradictory and non-transparent. 

This ballot question grew out of a campaign promise from the Massachusetts state auditor, Diana DiZoglio, during her 2022 run for her current position. She claims that there is an urgent need to bring more transparency and accountability to the Massachusetts state legislature, which is often ranked as one of the least transparent legislative bodies across the U.S. Meanwhile, legislators have disagreed fiercely with DiZoglio emphasizing their existing financial audits; however, DiZoglio continues to push for investigations of procedures and processes on Beacon Hill. Her audits would aim to clarify active and pending litigation, committee appointments, rules, and other policies and procedures within both the House and Senate. 

Those in favor of this new auditing structure emphasize that it is vital to combat the inefficiencies and slowdowns facing the legislature. With this new framework, the state auditor could investigate and ensure compliance with employee training rules, cybersecurity norms, and purchasing practices. There would still be aspects of the legislature’s internal business that would be off-limits to executive interference, including much of its legislative business like hearings and votes. Some supporters of this ballot proposition include Progressive Mass, The Berkshire Eagle, The Boston Globe, Act on Mass, Mass. Fiscal Alliance, and the current state auditor Diana DiZoglio.

The strongest argument against these proposed audits is the complication of separation of powers. Just like the federal government, Massachusetts and other state governments have an intricate balance of power between the three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Since the auditor is a part of the executive branch, it is concerning to many legal scholars to consider a massive power shift that gives the executive branch oversight over the legislature. This could also create legal issues in the future. Opponents of this ballot measure include Senate President Karen Spilka, House Speaker Ron Mariano, and Attorney General Andrea Campbell.

Question 2: Eliminating the MCAS graduation requirement

Passing the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), the Commonwealth’s standardized test, is a high school graduation requirement. It is important to note that only 8 of the 50 states in the U.S. require an exit exam to pass high school: Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming. The MCAS exam has been somewhat controversial since its introduction to the state educational system. The MCAS exam was authorized and created in the 1993 Massachusetts Education Reform Act. However, it has only been a graduation requirement since 2003. Originally, it was an integral part of the plan to increase student academic performance and set equal standards for educators’ curriculums. Yet, some experts argue that MCAS can be a barrier to select students completing their education, due to a variety of factors like learning disabilities or English language proficiency. However, it has been the benchmark assessment for state officials to gain insight into the state of education in the Commonwealth since its inception.

Proponents of Question 2 want the requirement removed and instead base graduation requirements on the judgment of local school boards and educators. They also explain that the lower stakes around MCAS could make it so teachers can focus on other aspects of the curriculum and prepare students more holistically, not just to pass an exam. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representative Ayanna Pressley, Representative Lori Trahan, Representative Jim McGovern, State Senator Jason Lewis, Progressive Mass, Amherst Regional School Committee, MassVOTE, and Massachusetts Voter Table are some of the names endorsing Question 2. 

There are some drawbacks to removing the MCAS requirement that opponents are stressing to voters. The main issue with implementing this policy shift is that it decentralizes education standards, leaving more than 300 school districts throughout the state to establish criteria for graduation they deem is fair. Opponents to removing the MCAS requirement emphasize that the exam does a fair, uniform job of establishing a standard for college and career readiness. In addition, they point to the evidence that strong performance on the exam is associated with economic and educational success. Many opponents of removing the MCAS exam requirement suggest the Commonwealth improve the assessment over changing the requirement entirely. Some opponents of this ballot proposition include North Central Massachusetts Chamber of Commerce, Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, and the Massachusetts Secretary of Education Patrick Tutwiler, as well as Governor Maura Healey.

Question 3: A union for rideshare drivers

Question 3 wants to change the current law regarding rideshare driver unions. The goal of Question 3 is to authorize a new path to unionization for rideshare drivers specifically employed by conglomerates like Uber and Lyft. The approach to unionization put forth in this ballot question is called “sector-based bargaining,” a largely untested method in the United States. Sector-based bargaining is a form of collective bargaining that extends across an entire occupation, industry, or region, rather than being limited to individual workplaces or companies. The effectiveness of sector-based bargaining heavily depends on the legal and economic context of the industry. The goal of this ballot question is to raise the standards for working conditions and wages in the rideshare industry.

There have been similar legal battles for improving conditions of these rideshare drivers across the country. For example, in California there have been major lawsuits against the ridesharing companies alleging that they deprived drivers of a minimum wage, overtime pay, reimbursements for expenses and other protections by labeling them as independent contractors. In addition, Seattle had similarly tried to introduce sector-based bargaining but suspended the law after an intense, lengthy legal battle. 

Arguments in favor of this ballot question center around the potential improvements in working conditions and wages for rideshare drivers. Currently, the rideshare industry has had issues with low payments, inadequate working hours, and little to no benefits, like health insurance. Progressive Mass and the Easthampton City Council have endorsed Question 3.

Some of the concerns voiced by opponents of Question 3 include fare increases and potential legal challenges. If rideshare drivers unionize, the companies will almost certainly raise the prices of their fares to compensate for the increased operating costs, In addition, opponents warn of potential legal challenges similar to the ones that faced Seattle where they attempted to implement a similar system but were ultimately struck down due to the unique classification of drivers as independent contractors. These legal issues could seriously delay the unionization efforts or gut the program altogether. Lastly, since sector-based bargaining is largely untested in the United States, it would require a strong regulatory framework that could prove difficult to establish. 

Question 4: Legalizing psychedelic drugs

Within the medical field, psychedelic drugs are used in mental health treatments and clinical research. Question 4 is considering legalizing the following naturally occurring drugs: psilocybin, psilocyn, mescaline, DMT, and ibogaine for recreational use. The legalization would only include growing, sharing with other adults, using at home, and using in clinical settings. The commercialization or sale of these psychedelics would not be legal under this question. 

If Massachusetts voters were to approve Question 4, it would follow Colorado and Oregon to become the third state legalizing psilocybin across the U.S. There are often comparisons made between the relatively new process of decriminalizing psychedelic drugs and the marijuana legalization progress across the country. These comparisons make sense since both are classified as Schedule 1 drugs federally that have been making slow progress in legalization; however there is at least one major, glaring difference between the two. The cost of accessing psychedelic drugs can, depending on the price, be 300 times more expensive than marijuana. Therefore, the process of legalization and potential commercialization will likely have a different regulatory framework and structure overall.

Proponents of legalizing psychedelics emphasize their positive effects on mental health, including treating terminally ill patients struggling with anxiety. The legalization efforts also include introducing these drugs in clinical and medical settings, which can provide safe environments to administer them. Supporters of this ballot measure include the Washington, D.C.-based New Approach PAC, Massachusetts for Mental Health Options, and Progressive Mass.

Others opposed to this proposal emphasize some of the serious consequences and potential side effects of some drugs within this class, including acute cardiac problems and neurological effects. In addition, clinical use would likely be limited and expensive which would drive people to more at-home usage with less oversight and therefore increased risk. Lastly, since these drugs are still considered illegal federally, it could open up knotty legal battles. Various organizations and elected officials, including the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the Coalition for Safe Communities, and Massachusetts Municipal Association Executive Director Adam Chapdelaine, have come out against Question 4.

Question 5: The minimum wage for tipped workers

The current minimum wage in Massachusetts is $15 per hour, and while waitstaff, bartenders, manicurists, and others who rely heavily on tips are authorized to receive as little as $6.75, a figure known as the “tipped minimum wage” granted that their tips make up the difference. Question 5 would phase out the $6.75 tipped-wage gradually bringing it up to the standard $15 per hour by 2029. After 2029, service workers will still be allowed to collect tips, but the businesses would be allowed to pool the tips to share them equally among restaurant staff. One of the main questions arising from this proposition is how the tipping culture may be affected by the new wage increases. Will patrons be less inclined to tip if they are aware that their servers are already making the standard minimum wage? 

Supporters explain that this measure would likely increase the earnings for tipped workers. They also share that the pooled tips could even out the wages between so-called front and back of house restaurant workers, who currently don’t receive tips. Right now, Progressive Mass is the only one to endorse this increased minimum wage.

Opponents worry about the increased costs that the restaurant and broader service industry will face from having to pay the full minimum wage. In order to counter this increase, they will most likely compensate with a mix of price increases, new service fees, hiring cuts, and potentially lower profits. Various organizations and elected officials have stated their opposition to this ballot measure, including the North Central Massachusetts Chamber of Commerce, Boston City Councilor Sharon Durkan, and Governor Maura Healey.  

If you are interested in these ballot measures further you can contact the relevant committees for each question found on the Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin’s website. In addition, follow MassTrac on our social media - Instagram, Threads, and Facebook, and continue to read our blog to keep up with election updates and all other things #mapoli. If you are interested in learning more about or contacting any of the elected officials referenced above, feel free to subscribe to or start a free trial of MassTrac available on our website.