LOST LAST MONTH amid the attention given to Donald Trump’s surprising showing in the state was another stunning rebuke of the Democratic Party. On Election Day, Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly approved Question 1, granting the state auditor, Diana DiZoglio, the authority to audit the Massachusetts Legislature, which the Democrats control.  

Since DiZoglio’s election in 2022, Democratic leaders in the Legislature have resisted her attempts to audit both chambers, arguing that they violate the separation of powers and are thus unconstitutional. In the wake of the passage of Question 1, questions have emerged about whether the Legislature would seek to narrow the scope of the citizen initiative or repeal it altogether.  

In a potential challenge to Question 1, the House passed an internal rule change stipulating that DiZoglio must choose an independent firm to conduct an audit. This contradicts the language of Question 1 that grants this authority to the state auditor.     

The respective views of the state auditor and the Legislature are clear. But what about those of ordinary Massachusetts residents? How do they feel about the Legislature? What are their views about the ballot initiative process? And why, ultimately, did a supermajority of Massachusetts voters support Question 1?   

Our recent University of Massachusetts Amherst/WCVB poll sheds some light on the answers to these questions. 

Our poll reveals declining public approval of the Legislature. In April of 2023, close to six in 10 residents approved of the job the Legislature was doing, but by October of 2024 only 46 percent did.

To further explore views of the Legislature, we asked respondents to describe it in one word. While some respondents described the Legislature as “good,” “fair,” and “okay,” others described it as “slow” and “useless.” In what may explain the strong public support for Question 1, the most frequently used word to describe the Legislature was “corrupt.” Clearly, Beacon Hill has an image problem. 

Our survey also found that Massachusetts residents strongly endorse the power of the people to use the ballot initiative process to hold elected officials accountable. Over three in four residents indicate they either “strongly support” or “somewhat support” using ballot questions to pass constitutional amendments or make laws. More pointedly, Massachusetts residents believe that ballot initiatives empower the people to correct legislative inaction. Three-quarters of residents (76 percent) agreed with the statement, “The ballot initiative process allows voters to address important problems that elected officials often fail to address.”  

These attitudes help explain why nearly 72 percent of Massachusetts residents approved of Question 1. Frustrated with what they view as poor performance with the Legislature, Massachusetts residents used one of the tools at their disposal to try to shake things up on Beacon Hill. 

Now, that doesn’t mean that Question 1 is a perfect initiative. Far from it. As state legislators, the attorney general, and a former state auditor have pointed out, Question 1 indeed raises serious questions about the separation of powers, because it involves the executive branch in the internal workings of the Legislature. And ballot questions are always going to be a blunt instrument for addressing complex constitutional issues. 

But as long as Massachusetts residents continue to feel that elected officials on Beacon Hill are failing to address pressing problems facing the Commonwealth, they will continue to try to use the initiative process to make changes. Overwhelming public support for Question 1 suggests state legislators may need to do some soul-searching about how to address the public’s concerns about state government. 

Tatishe Nteta is Provost Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and director of the UMass Poll. Jesse Rhodes is professor of political science at the UMass Amherst and co-director of the UMass Poll. Adam Eichen is a PhD student in political science at UMass Amherst and a graduate research fellow for the UMass Poll.

The post Question 1 delivered a harsh verdict on the Legislature appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

THE FINAL TALLY isn’t in yet, but the latest numbers show the Massachusetts Teachers Association spent more than $15 million on Question 2, their successful ballot measure to neuter the high-stakes MCAS test.

But that wasn’t the full extent of efforts by the state’s largest teachers union to influence outcomes in the election. The union’s super PAC, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money as long as it doesn’t coordinate with the candidates it supports, spent just over $183,000 to back House and Senate contenders who had been endorsed by the MTA.

Getting support from the union, which has spent years trying to end the state graduation exam, involved candidates passing something of high-stakes test from the MTA. The union asked about candidates’ support for the MCAS ballot question as well as their stand on the union’s other priorities.

The super PAC didn’t treat all 20 or so candidates equally. Dylan Fernandes, the Democratic candidate for a Plymouth-based state Senate seat, received more support than many of the others because he was in a closely contested race. He ended up beating Republican Matt Muratore by a slim margin.

Overall, super PAC spending was subdued this year compared to two years ago, when statewide offices were on the ballot and nearly $8 million flew out the door, and last year, when various outside groups spent $800,000 on municipal races in cities and towns.

The teachers union’s super PAC this year made up roughly a third of the total super PAC spending, which came to just over $658,000. The other usual suspects surfaced, too: Super PACs aligned with environmental advocates and real estate agents also jumped into legislative races, as well as the teachers union’s foes on many issues, Democrats for Education Reform.  

But the 10 campaign committees – the “yes” and “no” sides – behind the five ballot questions spent the most, totaling tens of millions of dollars, with the Massachusetts Teachers Association leading the pack, and outstripped the business-backed “no on 2” side by roughly $10 million.

Transportation task force up against end-of-year deadline

The transportation task force put together by Gov. Maura Healey is approaching its final destination, with a report due to be released December 31. Created through an executive order, the 31-member task force is charged with “making recommendations for a long-term sustainable transportation finance plan that addresses the need for a safe, reliable, and efficient transportation system, including roadways, bridges, railways, and bus and transit systems.”

Since it was formed in January, the task force has had meetings as a big group, as well as smaller “focus groups,” according to WBUR.

But some things appear to be off the table already, as both Healey and her transportation chief have said they will not increase tolls or add new ones on any roads. Monica Tibbits-Nutt, the state transportation secretary and chair of the task force, also recently said that the millionaires tax passed by voters in 2022 won’t be enough to fix the MBTA’s looming budget problem. 

With about a month to go, nothing is yet down on drafting paper. That makes the remaining meetings, like the one planned for December 4 involving the entire task force, all the more crucial.

In an interview after Thursday’s MBTA board meeting, Tibbits-Nutt called the upcoming meeting a “culmination of our previous focus groups, previous meetings, and really an opportunity to take all of that information, especially when we dive into things like housing, climate resiliency, and give an opportunity for the members to start discussing that, start to bring around the revenue models, financial models.”

She added: “This is going to be one of the final meetings and I think probably the most substantive.”

The question of just how substantive will have to be determined afterwards, since the meeting won’t be open to the public.

The post Political Notebook: Amid ballot fight, teachers union dipped into legislative races appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

RIDESHARE WORKERS are celebrating the passage of Question 3, which gave them a legal framework to unionize, but the path to unionizing may still prove to be an uphill climb with rideshare companies vowing to lobby lawmakers as the successful ballot measure moves into the implementation phase. 

House and Senate leadership has already indicated that the Legislature is considering reshaping two other ballot questions – one giving the auditor the power to audit the Legislature and the second getting rid of the state’s standardized test as a graduation requirement – that passed last week. The Legislature could also decide to wade into Question 3, as lawmakers can act to change any ballot measure even after it has passed into law. 

The ballot question, which seeks to give rideshare drivers the ability to form a union and bargain collectively and tasks the existing Commonwealth Employment Relations Board with implementing the law, creates a system for state oversight of bargaining between drivers and rideshare companies. Pushed by 32BJ SEIU and the International Association of Machinists, Question 3 narrowly passed with 53 percent of the vote. During the ballot campaign, no real opposition to the question materialized because Uber and Lyft did not fight the change. 

The passage of the ballot question takes place against the backdrop of a fight over whether Uber and Lyft drivers are independent contractors. Rideshare companies had pushed a separate ballot question this election season seeking to classify their drivers as such, but they dropped it as part of a settlement with Attorney General Andrea Campbell that included a minimum wage for rideshare workers and paid sick leave. 

Neither the settlement nor Question 3 settled the question at the heart of the original lawsuit: Are rideshare drivers independent contractors or full employees with a range of benefits?

After Question 3 passed, Uber and Lyft both indicated that they would be seeking technical changes to the law once it goes into effect. 

Freddie Goldstein, a spokesperson for Uber, emphasized that the question passed by a slim majority.

“In a deeply blue, pro-union state, with millions spent promoting the ballot proposition and not a single dollar opposing, Question 3 just squeaked by,” said Goldstein. “It’s clear that voters have reservations and it’s now incumbent upon the legislature to address their concerns.”

Goldstein noted that the ballot question language sets out a lower threshold required for a union to be approved than the standard set by national labor law, in which at least 30 percent of a workplace has to vote for a union to be formed. Per the ballot question, 25 percent of “active drivers” who have completed more than the median number of trips in the most recent quarter have to agree before a union is adopted. 

Critics have said that the danger of a lower threshold is that it can lead to a union that is unpopular among the members.

CJ Macklin, a spokesperson for Lyft, confirmed in an email that the company is also looking for ways to influence the process. “There are several technical issues we have with the ballot language, which we’ll be advocating around more directly in the next legislative session,” Macklin said.

Sen. Jamie Eldridge, of Marlborough, who endorsed Question 3, said that generally the Legislature evaluates and weighs in on ballot measures that pass. Sometimes the Legislature changes or delays the law. 

“The Legislature needs to honor the spirit and intent of Q3 and take whatever action to quickly implement the referendum that would allow rideshare drivers to begin organizing and form a union,” said Eldridge. “I would hope that these [rideshare] companies wouldn’t put any obstacles against rideshare drivers being able to form a union.” 

When a rideshare unionization measure passed in Seattle in 2015, it faced multiple lawsuits, including one filed by the US Chamber of Commerce. The implementation of the measure was held up for years as lawsuits played out about whether unionization would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act through illegal price-fixing of driver wages. Eventually, the legal fight ended when all parties decided to drop the lawsuit in 2020, but the law was gutted by the Seattle City Council and the drivers were left without the right to negotiate pay even if they did unionize. 

According to Evan Horowitz, the executive director at the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University, a court challenge in Massachusetts is very likely. 

Horowitz said that a court challenge could target the low unionization threshold, but another avenue might be to sue over the fact that the ballot question requires the state to suspend laws around anti-competitive bargaining by allowing multiple companies in the rideshare industry and workers of those multiple companies to band together in negotiations. The ballot question was designed to address this concern by requiring state oversight, but Horowitz said that this could still be a point of attack through the courts. 

“This [law] would be the state saying, ‘We’re not worried about contractors bargaining together so we’re going to suspend our concerns about competitiveness,’” Horowitz said. “The companies might say that the state can’t do that. I would expect that will be part of the challenge.” 

Meanwhile, union representatives said they will start the organizing process. 

“We plan to start bringing workers together to organize them into building the union and fighting for the things they care about,” said Manny Pastreich, the head of 32BJ. “We can’t control what other people do, but what drivers are excited about is getting started and taking advantage of this law.”

The post An uphill climb for rideshare unionization appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

GOV. MAURA HEALEY said Massachusetts voters have spoken on ballot questions doing away with the 10th-grade MCAS graduation test and auditing the Legislature, but she didn’t absolutely rule out signing into law legislation that would alter the new laws. 

State Auditor Diana DiZoglio on election night called on Healey to veto any attempt by the Legislature to repeal or modify Question 1, which grants DiZoglio’s office the authority to audit the Legislature. DiZoglio indicated she was worried by comments made prior to the election by House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka that they might revisit any laws created by passage of the audit and MCAS questions, which they opposed.

“I’m calling on Gov. Healey to veto their attempt to overturn the will of the people,” she said.

At a press conference in her office on Wednesday, Healey, who opposed the MCAS question and was silent on the audit question, said twice that the voters have spoken on the MCAS issue. “The voters have spoken on this and I think what’s important now is that [the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education] move forward in getting the appropriate guidance out,” she said.

Asked if she would veto any attempt to tinker with the laws created by Question 2 and Question 1, Healey hedged.

“I’ll review anything that comes to my desk,” she said.

With most votes counted, the legislative audit question was approved by a margin of 71.5 percent to 28.5 percent. The MCAS question’s margin was 59-41.

Immediately after it became apparent that Question 1 was approved Tuesday night, Mariano and Spilka issued a vague joint statement. “We will consider next steps regarding how to best respect the Question 1 election results in a manner that aligns with the fundamental principles of the Massachusetts Constitution, including separation of powers,” they said.

Max Page, the president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, which pushed Question 2, said “the governor is right. The voters have spoken.” Asked if he had any concern about Beacon Hill tinkering with the new law, he said: “I would hope they would honor the will of the voters.”

The guidance issued on Wednesday by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education said the new, voter-approved law takes effect December 5 and still requires students to earn a “competency determination” in order to graduate. Instead of a competency determination based on MCAS scores, the competency determination will now be based on “satisfactorily completing coursework that has been certified by the student’s district,” the guidance says.

Leading opponents of Question 2 issued statements in the wake of its passage calling for moving in a different direction than the law allows.

“Those responsible for our state’s public education system need to have an honest conversation about whether moving forward with this proposal is the right decision for Massachusetts,” said John Schneider, the chair of the Vote No on 2 group. He noted Healey, Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, Attorney General Andrea Campbell, Mariano, and Spilka all urged a no vote.

James Rooney, president and CEO of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, said his organization’s next step will be to “begin discussions with stakeholders about new 21st century statewide graduation requirements that prioritize every child and their education in a meaningful way, regardless of which school district they attend.”

Ed Lambert, executive director of the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, urged state leaders “to immediately begin the process of creating a new, strengthened, uniform high school graduation standard that preserves high expectations and educational equity.”

The Ed Trust in Massachusetts also issued a statement, saying: “Massachusetts is left without a statewide graduation standard, highlighting the urgent need for the state to enact meaningful policies that ensure equitable access to high-quality curricula across all districts. The state should also work to develop an alternative statewide graduation standard that adequately prepares all students in the Commonwealth for life beyond high school. Without such a standard, we risk creating a disjointed system in which there is no assurance that students across the state’s 306 school districts receive a comparable education.”

The post The voters have spoken  on Questions 1, 2 – or have they? appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

This story has been updated.

MASSACHUSETTS VOTERS gave rideshare drivers the right to unionize, but they rejected by decisive margins ballot questions legalizing psychedelics and increasing the minimum wage for tipped restaurant workers.

Here’s how it shook out on ballot Questions 3, 4, and 5:

Question 3 – Rideshare unionization

A ballot question allowing rideshare drivers was called early Wednesday afternoon, with the “yes” side leading by a margin of 53 to 46 percent with 96 percent of the vote counted.

The question will allow rideshare drivers working for Uber and Lyft to form a union and bargain collectively. It comes months after Attorney General Andrea Campbell reached a settlement with Uber and Lyft that guaranteed drivers a guaranteed minimum wage and some other benefits, but left unclear whether they are independent contractors or employees entitled to overtime and other legal protections.

In return for the settlement with the attorney general, Uber and Lyft withdrew a ballot question they had been pushing that would have designated drivers as independent contractors. The two companies also didn’t mount a campaign against the unionization question, although there is a possibility the companies will fight it in court. Critics of the question have said unionization will cause the prices of Uber and Lyft rides to shoot up.

“Tomorrow we’re ready to build a union,” said Manny Pastreich, president of 32BJ, the union leading the ballot campaign at the campaign’s election party Tuesday night. “Tomorrow, we’re ready to fight for better wages. Tomorrow, we’re going to fight for better benefits. This is the biggest victory for drivers.”

The campaign’s election party – full of drivers who work for Uber and Lyft – was full of energy throughout the night with impromptu conga lines; people with plates full of churros, tacos, and empanadas; and Latin music playing in the background. The music prompted people to burst into dance, spinning around tables decorated with balloons stamped with a tire motif. 

“Once we become a part of the union, we will be able as drivers to have a seat at the table and actually get to negotiate,” said Patrick Ruzibukia, a driver who works for Uber and Lyft. 

Proponents of rideshare unionization have argued during the campaign that being able to bargain collectively will allow rideshare drivers to protect their benefits and gain new ones in the future. No organized groups opposed Question 3,  though conservative groups have indicated they may be inclined to challenge the law in court for being inconsistent with federal labor guidelines.

Question 4 – Psychedelics 

Massachusetts voters may have legalized marijuana by ballot, but they stopped short of decriminalizing psychedelics on Tuesday, rejecting the measure by a 57-43 margin with 88 percent of the votes counted.

Question 4, seeking to decriminalize a suite of psychedelics and set up a new system for psychedelic-assisted therapy, was on unsteady polling ground with 48 percent support heading into the election. The ballot question pitted advocates for a new psychedelic therapy industry against those worried about the negative safety and societal effects of introducing a new potential vice to the state.

In a statement just after 11:30 p.m. Tuesday with the no side holding a steady majority of votes, the Yes on 4 campaign conceded defeat. 

“We understand there were concerns about the home-grow provisions, and those concerns likely led to tonight’s result,” said a spokesperson for the campaign. “But we have made hugely important strides on this issue of psychedelic therapy, and we will keep fighting to find new pathways for all those who struggle with their mental health.” 

Some proponents of the ballot question – including former “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” actress Eliza Dushku, who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the campaign – said they have personally experienced the therapeutic effects of psychedelics.

Those supporting the ballot measure argued that decriminalization would allow people to consume psychedelics more safely with guidance from medical professionals, and that access to therapeutic settings for psychedelics would be key to helping people with otherwise untreatable depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other mental health conditions. 

Those opposing the psychedelics question have warned about dangers to public health. The head of the state psychiatric society, Nassir Ghaemi, has been speaking out against the ballot question and arguing that the measure could lead to more intoxicated driving incidents and more emergency room visits. There isn’t data that shows a significant uptick in public health or safety incidents in other states where psychedelics have been decriminalized.

The group running the psychedelics ballot campaign had raised $7.3 million and spent $6.4 million leading up to election day, with backing from a national PAC that previously funded the marijuana legalization ballot question in Massachusetts. 

Similar psychedelics ballot questions have passed in Oregon and in Colorado. Oregon is well into the process of setting up centers where people can access psychedelics-assisted therapy, but the price tags on the therapeutic experiences have been high.

Question 5 – Tipped Wages 

The ballot question in the most precarious position as the campaign season waned – the push to increase the minimum wage for tipped restaurant workers – ultimately fizzled after a sharp turn toward the no side in recent months.

With 88 percent of the vote counted Wednesday morning, the tipped wage ballot question was going down to defeat by a margin of 64-36. 

“Despite a hard-fought campaign led by thousands of tipped workers and supporters across Massachusetts, Question 5 narrowly fell short today, a loss attributed to an unprecedented influx of corporate spending and a campaign of misinformation led by the National Restaurant Association, the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, and powerful multinational chain restaurant corporations whose only goal is to keep wages low,” the group pushing the ballot question wrote in a statement after the race was called. 

Question 5, which was polling below 50 percent running up to election night, sought to gradually increase the baseline pay for tipped workers to the state minimum wage, which is currently $15, and allow employers to administer a tip pool to distribute the combined tips to tipped and non-tipped workers.

The current system, which requires restaurants to pay their tipped workers $6.75 an hour and use tips to make up the difference if the worker doesn’t reach $15 an hour, has been criticized for leading to uneven pay and the potential for wage theft or sexual harassment. The tipped wage ballot question was supported by a national coalition called One Fair Wage, which spent $652,642 on the campaign. 

The Committee to Protect Tips group, consisting mostly of restaurant owners, has raised and spent significantly – $1.6 million in reported expenditures – to maintain the status quo.

The Massachusetts Restaurant Association, the state’s Republican party, and Gov. Maura Healey all weighed in against the question. Several restaurateurs had argued that the change would upend their industry. 

If this ballot question had passed, Massachusetts would have joined eight states that require or are on their way to requiring the full minimum wage for tipped workers. Analyses of raising the minimum wage for tipped workers have suggested that tipped workers make measurably more money when their baseline pay is increased and the increase in restaurants’ costs could be as low as 1 percent. 

Opponents of the ballot question said it would incentivize customers to no longer tip and that tip-pooling is an unpopular practice that would take tips away from the workers who earned them. The question does not require employers to initiate a tip pool – it simply allows them to. 

Following the results of election night, the Committee to Protect Tips celebrated.

“Tipped workers and the restaurant industry have triumphed,” said Nancy Caswell, the campaign treasurer for Massachusetts Restaurants United and owner of the Newburyport restaurant Brine, in a statement. “We keep the power in the hands of individual servers and bartenders who work tirelessly every day to service guests across the Commonwealth to the best of their abilities.” 

The post Rideshare unionization question passes appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

MASSACHUSETTS VOTERS resoundingly approved a ballot question that will remove the requirement that high school students pass a 10th-grade standardized test in English, math, and science to graduate. 

The vote pulls down a central pillar of the state’s 1993 education reform law, and makes Massachusetts one of only two states with no statewide requirements for high school graduation.

By a 59 percent to 41 percent margin, voters endorsed the change following a high-profile campaign bankrolled by more than $16 million from the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union, which has long opposed the test-based accountability system for public schools ushered in three decades ago by the reform law. 

Proponents argued that the high-stakes graduation exam causes undue stress and punishes those who don’t perform well on standardized tests. They said the test doesn’t fully capture students’ abilities, particularly English language learners and students with disabilities, the two student groups that struggle most to pass the exam. They also said it forced educators to teach to the test, narrowing the focus of school curriculum. 

Opponents – including Gov. Maura Healey, Senate President Karen Spilka, and House Speaker Ron Mariano – said it was vital to maintain a common assessment for all students, regardless of their demographic background or the district where they attend school. They argued that the accountability system established under the 1993 education law helped Massachusetts rocket from just above average in national rankings of student performance to at or near the top in math and reading scores. 

In a statement, MTA president Max Page and vice president Deb McCarthy hailed the vote as a victory for teachers and students. “In passing Question 2, Massachusetts voters have proclaimed that they are ready to let teachers teach, and students learn, without the onerous effects of a high-stakes standardized test undermining the mission of public education: to prepare all students for future success as citizens, workers and creative, happy adults,” they said.

The campaign against the ballot question, “Protect Our Kids’ Future: Vote No on 2,” decried the vote as a move backward and encouraged state leaders to consider intervening to block it. “Eliminating the graduation requirement without a replacement is reckless,” campaign chairman John Schneider said in a statement. “The passage of Question 2 opens the door to greater inequity; our coalition intends to ensure that door does not stay open. Those responsible for our state’s public education system need to have an honest conversation about whether moving forward with this proposal is the right decision for Massachusetts.” 

The campaign against the ballot question, which relied on wealthy donors, was outspent more than 3-to-1. It brought in $5.4 million, nearly half of which came late last month from former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who donated $2.5 million. 

State-established standardized tests, known as the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, or MCAS, were a key element of the 1993 Education Reform Act, which combined curriculum frameworks and rigorous standards with a huge infusion of new state spending on schools, much of it directed to low-income districts that struggled to fund classrooms adequately. 

The law was often referred to as a “grand bargain” – bringing new standards and expectations for student achievement that business leaders said were critical to the state’s growing knowledge economy, while addressing the call by teachers unions and other advocates for more state aid to offset huge disparities in school funding at the local level. 

Teachers unions were never enthusiastic about the new standards and testing regime, however. The ballot campaign to strip away the graduation test requirement capped a decade of growing resistance from the MTA to the use of standardized tests to judge schools and students. 

The union has taken aim over this period at various elements of the state’s education reform law under a succession of leaders who have steered the union sharply to the left.

Two years ago, in a scathing and sarcasm-filled attack before members of the state education board, Page, the MTA’s current president, darkly characterized the state testing system as the “MCAS hunger games.” He accused the board of being “obsessed with a test invented some 20 years ago and repeatedly shown to do little more than prove the wealth of a student and the community where it is taken.” Page also railed against what he called the board’s “focus on income and college and career readiness,” which he said “speaks to a system that is tied to the capitalist class..and its needs for profits.”

A student who fails the MCAS in 10th grade, can take it four more times in 11th and 12th grade. There is also an appeals process through which students can be cleared to graduate by showing a portfolio of school work or if school officials determine they have met state learning standards through coursework. Of the roughly 65,000 high school seniors each year in the state, only about 1 percent, or about 700 students, fail to graduate because of MCAS after meeting all other district requirements. About 85 percent of those students are English learners or students with disabilities. 

Massachusetts is one of just nine states with a high school exit exam. That number has been steadily dropping, down from 13 states in 2019 and from more than half of all states in 2002, according to Education Week. 

John Papay, an associate professor of education and economics at Brown University who has carried out extensive research on MCAS, said resistance to test-based accountability has been growing for more than two decades, dating to passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Law of 2001. But he said opposition to graduation tests has intensified since the pandemic, when states paused testing amid the disruption of school closures. “Many of the places that we’re seeing now moving away from exit exams just did not come back after the pandemic,” he said of states that have dropped the requirement since 2019. 

Ads in support of Question 2 urged a yes vote to “replace” the high-stakes graduation test, but the ballot question does not actually put forward a replacement for it. MTA leaders say the replacement is the state’s curriculum frameworks and standards, which spell out the material to be covered in classes and the expectations for student mastery of those subjects. 

But those are existing standards that have already been in place. Unlike many states, Massachusetts has no state-required high school course sequence that students follow, so removing the graduation test will mean there is no common statewide standard for receiving a diploma. 

Although Tuesday’s vote removes use of the test as a graduation requirement, students will continue to take MCAS exams in grades 3 through 8 as well as in the 10th grade.

Education reform policies ranging from testing to charter schools once enjoyed fairly robust bipartisan support. But views on education issues have taken on an increasingly partisan bent, with Democrats turning away from various reform initiatives. 

A University of New Hampshire poll released over the weekend showed a sharp partisan divide on the ballot question, with 65 percent of Democrats favoring the move to end the MCAS graduation requirement and 32 percent opposed. Among the Republicans the numbers were essentially reversed, with 25 percent favoring Question 2 and 66 percent opposed. 

Both of the state’s Democratic US senators and four of the nine members of the state’s all-Democratic US House delegation came out in favor of Question 2. But on Beacon Hill, a bipartisan succession of governors and Democratic legislative leaders, who are responsible for overseeing state education policy, have maintained strong support for the education reform law since its adoption more than three decades ago. 

Healey called the graduation test a crucial cornerstone of the effort to hold schools to a common standard. “Eliminating the MCAS requirement means that we won’t have the same standard for schools across the state,” she said last month at a Roxbury youth services agency where she went to speak out against the ballot question. “I don’t believe that the standards should be different for students in our state depending on what ZIP code they’re living in and attending school in.” 

Whether the voter-approved change will be the last word on the issue is unclear. The Legislature has the power to alter laws enacted through ballot questions or repeal them altogether. Mariano and Spilka sent signals last month that they might look to craft a new statewide graduation requirement in place of the MCAS test should the ballot question pass. 

“We’ll have some discussions if it passes, and then we’ll follow up,” Spilka said. “I am not in favor of getting rid of MCAS.” 

At the time, the MTA blasted any talk of reworking the ballot question if it passes. Page called Spilka and Mariano the “lonely few opponents from Beacon Hill” with a “weird obsession” with standardized testing. 

The post Voters end MCAS graduation test requirement  appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

STATE AUDITOR Diana DiZoglio’s ballot question giving her office the power to audit the Legislature cruised to a jaw-dropping victory on Tuesday, but with that hurdle out of the way she now faces additional challenges as the campaign enters a new phase.

Voters made clear where they stand on the issue. The Associated Press declared the “yes” side on Question 1 the winner just before midnight. By 1 a.m. Wednesday, with nearly 81 percent of the vote counted, the margin was 71.5 to 28.5 percent. The question had strong support across the political spectrum; only two small communities, Spencer and Deerfield, voted against the ballot question.

DiZoglio called the margin a clear mandate from the state’s voters and pledged to immediately reopen the audit she released two weeks ago to pursue the information the Legislature withheld from her office.

“Tonight’s victory is an opportunity for all of us to look forward and make government work better,” said DiZoglio, who served as a legislative aide, a state representative, and a senator before being elected auditor.

The Legislature, which did not organize any opposition to the ballot question, is not expected to go along with what the voters approved. House and Senate leaders have said the law violates the state’s constitution and have indicated their chambers may rewrite or reject the law. Or they could simply ignore it, precipitating a possible court fight over its legality.

In a brief interview on Tuesday night, DiZoglio said she is prepared to take on the Legislature either in court or on Beacon Hill. She said she is enlisting the support of supportive lawmakers to block any action in the Legislature that would undermine Tuesday’s vote. If that fails, DiZoglio said, she is urging the governor to side with the state’s voters.

“I’m calling on Gov. Healey to veto their attempt to overturn the will of the people,” she said.

Senate President Karen Spilka and House Speaker Ron Mariano issued a cautious statement last night. “Consistent with how the Legislature has moved forward with every voter-approved ballot question in the past, we will consider next steps regarding how to best respect the Question 1 election results in a manner that aligns with the fundamental principles of the Massachusetts Constitution, including separation of powers,” they said.

DiZoglio’s victory in the ballot campaign on Tuesday appears to be just the first step in what could be a lengthy fight.

DiZoglio released an audit of the Legislature two weeks before the election. Normally, the auditor wouldn’t audit the same entity for another two or three years, but she said in this case she will resurrect the audit she just completed and go back to the Legislature for the information it refused to provide earlier. 

That could precipitate a legal showdown pitting the auditor against the Legislature. It could also put Attorney General Andrea Campbell in an awkward spot, forcing her to choose whether to represent DiZoglio in the legal fight.

Campbell bluntly told DiZoglio before her ballot campaign that she lacked the legal authority to audit the Legislature without its permission. Now that voters have given DiZoglio that authority, the question is how far it extends.

Campbell previously declined to say how she intended to vote on Question 1, but her spokesperson issued a statement indicating even the passage of the new law by voters would have its limitations.

“AG Campbell believes in transparency, and does not oppose audits of the Legislature just as long as they are consistent with the state constitution,” the statement said.

That last phrase is the sticking point because many of the holes in DiZoglio’s legislative audit deal with issues the Legislature considers part of its exclusive domain, and not subject to review by another branch of government. 

DiZoglio argued that the Legislature’s refusal to cooperate with the audit demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the separation of powers doctrine. “The separation of powers doctrine forbids departments from exercising the powers of the other departments; it does not preclude oversight by one department over another,” the audit stated. The audit also noted that the Legislature would not be required to implement any of the changes recommended in audits.

DiZoglio said in the interview with CommonWeath Beacon that she didn’t think the Legislature could prevail in court, in part because the Legislature’s Post Audit and Oversight Committee already conducts performance audits of the executive branch – exactly the type of audit she wants to do of the Legislature. She described the Legislature’s stance as “an audit for thee but not for me” approach, and suggested lawmakers are unlikely to pursue that path.

Voters approved the ballot question at a time when the Legislature is coming under fire for failing to finish its business by the end of the legislative session on July 31 and resorting to somewhat unorthodox changes in its rules to finish its work. 

“The legislative process at the State House is completely broken,’ said Paul Craney, a spokesperson for the conservative Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which lent its support to the ballot question effort. “Today’s victory shows that the people of Massachusetts want more transparency and accountability from their leaders in state government. These results are a repudiation of what is going on at the State House.”

Craney urged legislative leaders to obey the will of the voters. “If they act as election deniers and don’t comply, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance will continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure the will of the voters are accepted,” Craney said.

The post Voters demand audit of Legislature, hurdles remain  appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

FOR OVER A CENTURY, referendum questions have been placed on the ballot in states across the nation – and they often impact the outcome of races between candidates. Some, such as California’s Proposition 13 in 1978 capping local property taxes, helped boost anti-tax conservative candidates on the state ballot and were high-profile national news. Others, such as same-sex marriage questions on the ballot in many states in 2004, can impact races at the top of the ballot. That year, some observers believe the increased turnout from voters opposed to gay marriage cost John Kerry the presidential election, with some speculating that it was an intentional strategy used to tilt the presidential contest.

More recently, in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade, pro-choice forces have taken to the ballot to protect abortion rights. They have largely been victorious, most notably in Kansas, one of the more traditionally conservative states in the nation. Some women in Kansas who cast ballots on that 2022 referendum were likely not regular, or even typically liberal, voters. Arizona and Florida will have questions to overturn their states’ abortion bans on this week’s ballot, as will other states.

Here in Massachusetts, we have our own tradition of referendum questions being placed on the ballot that have influenced major elections. Along with Maine, the Commonwealth is one of only two states in the Northeast to provide for citizen-initiated referendum questions. 

In 1949, the New Boston Committee, led by a young Harvard Law School graduate, Jerome Rappaport, successfully collected signatures to place a question on the ballot to reorganize city government. The New Boston Committee included many returning World War II veterans. The movement for change increased voter turnout in the 1949 election and probably contributed to the defeat of James Michael Curley, who was seeking reelection as mayor.

While one of us (DiCara) was serving on the Boston City Council in the 1970s, he worked with then-state Rep. Bill Galvin and a coalition of citizens to place a referendum question on the 1977  municipal ballot to reorganize the school committee and the city council, which both elected all their members citywide, to include district-based as well as at-large seats. Although the effort did not succeed on the first try, that year saw a far higher turnout than in the most recent off-year election with no mayor’s race, in 1973. 

Although the ballot question was defeated, under the higher turnout generated by the reform-focused campaign its supporters waged, conservative anti-busing leader Louise Day Hicks – who topped the city council ticket in 1969, 1973, and 1975 – was defeated, as was her conservative colleague John Kerrigan. In the same election,  John D. O’Bryant became the first Black member elected to the Boston School Committee. 

Four years later, in 1981, the ballot question revamping the structure of the city council and school committee prevailed, with the help of funding from the leaders of the business community, who agreed with the proponents that something was really wrong with a city council and a school committee in a rapidly diversifying city in which almost all the people elected were either Irish or Italian Americans. 

The granddaddy of all Massachusetts examples of ballot questions affecting other races came in 1948. State Rep. Tip O’Neill of Cambridge – years before he would go on to become speaker of the US House of Representatives – was hoping to become the first Democratic speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Two questions on that year’s ballot proved to be instrumental to his effort. One would have put limits on unionizing efforts in the workplace; another would have legalized the distribution of birth control advice to married women by doctors.   

The two ballot questions were a natural draw for the state’s heavily Catholic, working-class Democratic voters, who were strongly pro-labor and being encouraged by parish priests to oppose the loosening of laws governing information on contraception. Not only did the questions energize organized labor and anti-contraception voters, it was also the first presidential election in which World War II servicemen were back in Massachusetts. 

Turnout was extraordinarily high – a remarkable 87 percent statewide – and both the questions were defeated by wide margins. Meanwhile, many Democrats, most of them Catholic, who sought seats in the Legislature defeated long-standing Republican members of the House, which then had 240 members. 

Democrats flipped a 48-seat deficit in the Massachusetts House into a narrow 4 seat margin, and made Tip O’Neill the 73rd speaker of Massachusetts House of Representatives. It was the first time in history that Democrats had control of the Massachusetts House. They also managed to defeat the incumbent Republican governor.

O’Neill credited the ballot questions for the Democrats’ sweeping victory. “We were lucky that in 1948 just about everything was going our way,” he later wrote. 

Referendum questions do not exist in a vacuum. Voters expect their candidates to take a position.  In 1948, while the Democratic Party came out in favor of the pro-labor and anti-contraception positions, the Republican Party, with few exceptions, aligned closely with business interests opposed to the union questions, and refused to take a position on the contraception question at their state convention. These ballot questions also did not just move voters who normally wouldn’t turn out, but impacted voters’ decisions at the ballot box for other races. Referendums have both a turnout effect and a persuasion effect on other contests.

As voters prepare to tackle referendums protecting abortion this fall, political observers should keep in mind not only how issue campaigns can motivate voters and affect partisan contests, but also how these questions will frame the narrative of the election this fall. Politicians should heed that not taking a clear position on these issues can sink them almost as much as taking the wrong one. For example, former president Donald Trump, after seesawing on this important issue for many months, finally said he will vote no on Florida’s Amendment 4, which would lift that state’s abortion ban. 

Although the nation’s, and Massachusetts’ view toward the subject has swung dramatically in the other direction since 1948, the intensity of the issue has not. Voters turning out to protect abortion rights in certain states could decide the presidential election.

Lawrence S. DiCara is an attorney and former Boston City Council president. James Nichols-Worley is a student at Georgetown University.

The post The long history of ballot questions influencing races between candidates appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

BALLOT MEASURES can often be a grab bag of wide-ranging and niche policy issues – expensive statewide fights intended to sidestep lawmakers or force them into motion. On Tuesday, voters will consider five ballot questions with clear workplace and workforce dimensions, revealing tensions in existing workplaces or creating new industries and workforce structures. 

The CommonWealth Beacon newsroom discussed the ballot slate this week on a special pre-Election Day episode of The Codcast. Some highlights of the conversation follow:

Question 1

This initiative would give the state auditor the authority to audit the Legislature. The latest ballot question polling, from the University of New Hampshire, shows Diana DiZoglio’s quest to pry open the process of her former workplace is on track to pass handily with 65 percent of likely Massachusetts voters polled saying they plan to vote “yes.” 

DiZoglio’s efforts are, even by her own telling, informed by her experience in the State House as a legislative aide, then state representative, then state senator. The Methuen native, who ousted incumbent Rep. David Torrisi for a place in the House chamber, was “always sort of on the outs with her bosses, or the power structure there,” CommonWealth Beacon editor Bruce Mohl noted. 

The campaign pledge to audit DiZoglio’s former workplace – citing frustration with an opaque and often top-down lawmaking process – struck political gold and built a coalition of those on the left and right who are disgruntled with the Legislature. 

Though they have not mounted an opposition campaign, legislative leaders have swiped at the audit effort as an attempt to overstep constitutional separations of powers. Even as they point to annual independent financial audits, lawmakers also insist that privacy is essential to their ability to craft legislation and horse trade to a final result. Yet, “the ability to just change rules whenever they want to,” Mohl said, can rankle observers and legislators without close relationships to leadership. 

Question 2

A proposal to eliminate the 10th grade MCAS test as a graduation requirement has slipped below 50 percent of likely voters in favor, as state leaders including Gov. Maura Healey line up against the initiative. 

The pricey ballot fight is backed by millions of dollars from the Massachusetts Teachers Association and opposed by business groups and individuals, including billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. 

Inside the classroom, proponents say elimination of the high-stakes test will “free teachers up to teach a richer curriculum, to not be bound by the pressure they have felt to, as they put it, teach to the test,” said executive editor Michael Jonas. Critics, on the other hand, claim “teachers are concerned about the sort of judgment and accountability that comes their way based on how students are doing,” both in terms of an absolute level and in making progress, Jonas said.

The disagreement also turns on whether the MCAS test, more generally, is an essential ingredient to student and teacher success. The test would stay in place as a diagnostic tool even if the graduation requirement were removed.

Question 3

Attorney General Andrea Campbell this spring settled a suit brought by her predecessor, then-AG Maura Healey, to ensure baseline wages and benefits for drivers in exchange for Uber and Lyft dropping their ballot campaign to classify drivers as independent contractors. A separate measure plowed forward, championed by some workers unions, that would create a system for ride-share drivers to unionize regardless of their classification. 

It crafts a system – objected to by some conservative groups as out of line with federal labor practices – that would let ride-share drivers define a union group and empower a bargaining coalition to negotiate on their behalf.

“The question is, essentially, what are the common interests of these sorts of gig workers and who should be in charge of arguing for them?” reporter Jennifer Smith said.

The ride-share workforce is diffuse, made up of drivers who use the gig model to supplement other jobs and others who essentially drive full-time. Massachusetts unions, likewise, have not all agreed that the ballot measure crafts the best way to create a unionization mechanism nor that the ballot was the best place to push a complex change to the industry. 

So far the measure has 55 percent of support from likely voters, and, like Question 1, faces little formal campaign opposition in anticipation of the real fight taking place in court if the measure passes. 

Question 4

Every once in a while, the ballot becomes the launch point for an entire industry. Years after cannabis was legalized first as a medical drug and then recreationally, it may be psychedelics’ turn. Less than half of likely voters so far say they plan to support the measure that would broaden access to certain psychedelic substances either in therapeutic settings or allowing home-grown psychedelic mushrooms.

The “psychedelic therapeutic model would be just a much more controlled and regulated way of doing psychedelics” compared to cannabis, reporter Bhaamati Borkhetaria said. It would create centers where a person could take a supervised dosage, she noted, which means concern is focused on “public safety, what dangers people could face on a trip that goes badly, what dangers people could face if someone isn’t properly prepared to help someone through a trip.”

Proponents not only say access to some psychedelics can be a transformative therapeutic option – some would also like jobs in the industry. Actress Eliza Dushku (“Buffy the Vampire Slayer”), has put hundreds of thousands dollars toward the campaign and hopes to become one of those licensed facilitators. Opponents, the most prominent of which also opposed cannabis legalization, are not hauling in the same amount of money. 

Workplace squabbles and leadership turnover at the cannabis oversight body offer a cautionary note, as the psychedelics ballot measure would also introduce a five-person commission to oversee the industry.

Question 5

The final ballot question, which would raise the minimum wage for tipped workers and allow tip pooling between front- and back-of-house staff, now looks least likely to clear the finish line. Support has eroded dramatically in polling over the past months, setting at 45 percent opposed and 41 percent in favor, according to the most recent University of New Hampshire poll. 

Part of a national effort to raise tipped wages, backed by a California activist, the ballot campaign argues that tipped work is often exploitative and rife with abuse and wage theft. Raising the baseline wage from $6.75 an hour plus tips to $15 an hour plus tips would address some of those issues, they argue, while restaurant groups opposing the measure say it would lead to high dining costs, layoffs, and even closures. 

Tipped workers are now the most prominent face of opposition, reporter Gintautas Dumcius noted.

“I think anybody who’s probably been out for lunch or dinner in the last couple months has seen the debate has invaded the table,” he said, recalling a recent stop for lunch where inside his bill was campaign literature telling him to vote no.

“I’ve heard from others who say servers at some of these restaurants have launched into a pitch for a no vote for this,” he said. “Obviously that’s all the time and money that the restaurant owners are paying to defeat this measure. So it’s definitely one of the most interesting ballot measures to watch on Tuesday.”

The post Five ballot questions all have a workplace connection appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.

MASSACHUSETTS DOES a lot of things right. In particular, the state excels at providing the best K-12 education, putting every child on a path to success.

Massachusetts has the best public schools in the country, according to World Population Review.  WalletHub’s Most Educated States 2024 Rankings says that “Massachusetts topped all other states in educational attainment and quality of education. The factors considered include the number of residents with diplomas and degrees, school system quality, graduation rates and test scores.”

Question 2 on Tuesday’s election ballot would gut our top-ranked education system by eliminating the Massachusetts Comprehensive Achievement System (MCAS) test as a graduation requirement. As the presidents and CEOs of three of the state’s leading business organizations, we are deeply concerned about lowering the standards of what a high-school diploma means in Massachusetts and how it will hinder the success of our children, their families, the region’s employers, and our economy. That is why we are voting no on Question 2.

Massachusetts’ most significant competitive advantage is its highly educated workforce. The MCAS is currently the only objective metric that measures a student’s readiness for graduation. Since it became a graduation requirement in 2003, standards for students have been raised, graduation rates have soared, and dropout rates have decreased. Question 2 would undermine that progress and would be terrible for the future of our children.

MCAS has proven to be a reliable indicator of a student’s college and career readiness. Research from Brown University shows high school MCAS scores predict long-term success and accurately reflect the academic progress of every student. The report shows the higher the MCAS scores, the greater the future earnings — and that holds true across all ethnic, educational, and socioeconomic groups. 

In addition, the MCAS exam is an instrument of equity. Requiring students to meet a state standard to graduate from high school ensures that all districts are setting the same minimum academic standard for their students. If Question 2 passes, Massachusetts will have more than 300 different and unequal standards for graduation, leading to inaccurate assessments of student readiness for college and career and wider inequities in student achievement and opportunities.

MCAS has also been integral to exposing achievement gaps in the system, resulting in increased funding for under-resourced districts and more equitable learning opportunities for children. The data identifies where students stand academically so that interventions can be tailored accordingly. Students who don’t pass the MCAS on the first try are provided targeted support and given five chances to retake the exam. 

If this ballot question passes, it will turn back the clock 30 years to a time when children in far too many districts graduated from high school without the skills and knowledge they needed to be successful in life beyond high school.

The Massachusetts economy is poised for growth, which means more opportunities for our children to find meaningful career paths that will lead to upward economic mobility – but only with the right skills and education.

Investments in new industries such as AI and clean tech will add to an economy that already enjoys global leadership in life sciences, health care, financial services, and advanced manufacturing, along with the energy of thousands of small businesses that provide the backbone of our economy. But this growth only happens when we put our children and their futures first by maintaining the best schools in the nation. This has been the foundation of the Massachusetts success story for decades. It’s what we do right.

Question 2 is a misguided effort that undoes what we do best. Children, parents, and employers across the state need to have confidence that a high school diploma is meaningful. For decades, our education system has delivered that confidence. It is for all of these reasons and more that we agree with Gov. Maura Healey, Secretary of Education Patrick Tutwiler, and many other state leaders who believe that the MCAS must remain a requirement to obtain a meaningful high school diploma.

It’s time to prioritize what is best for our kids, schools, and the future workforce. We can start by voting no on Question 2 in this election.

JD Chesloff is the president & CEO of the Massachusetts Business Roundtable. James E. Rooney is the president & CEO of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Brooke Thomson is the president & CEO of Associated Industries of Massachusetts.

The post Question 2: A misguided effort that will harm kids, their futures, and the economy appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.