UPDATED – LETTER: Watertown Resident Evaluates Ballot Questions

By Matt Lashof-Sullivan

Hey Watertown neighbors.

Another election season is approaching and so it’s time for everyone to decide how they are going to vote this November.

For many years I have sent out voting information and a list of endorsements for our local elections to my friends and immediate neighbors. This year, I decided to share them with a larger group, so I hope you find this helpful.

How to Vote

To vote in person, go to your polling place on November 5th. 

We can all also vote by mail again, and you can still request a mail-in ballot until October 26th by using this form or otherwise by sending a letter to the city clerk. You can also register to vote through October 26th. If you applied for a ballot but do not receive one, or if you change your mind about whether you want to vote by mail, you can still vote in person on November 5th unless you have already actually voted by mail.

How  I’m Voting – Ballot Questions

These endorsements reflect my own views, but I’ll try to explain my reasoning in each contest to help you come to your own conclusions. I will list all choices that will appear on our ballot, and give my thoughts about all of them. I won’t insult you by telling you who to vote for in high-profile races, but I figured an independent analysis of the ballot questions would be helpful.

YES on Question 1, Authorization of State Auditor to Audit General Court

This initiative would empower the State Auditor to audit the legislature. Under current law, her ability to do this is disputed. Our legislature is famously non-transparent, and I suspect there are a fair number of metaphorical skeletons in their closets, slush funds, etc. In theory the Auditor could use this power to harass the legislature. I would be more worried about that, though, if the Auditor was appointed by the governor. Since she is separately elected, she can be replaced if she is causing problems. I am a YES on this one.

NO on Question 2, Repeal MCAS Requirement for High School Graduation

Under current law, high school students must pass the 10th Grade MCAS in order to graduate high school. This initiative would repeal that requirement. The initiative would not affect any other graduation requirements that local school districts currently have for their high schools.

Supporters of this initiative claim that it would support equity by eliminating unnecessary barriers to educational success, and prevent harmful teaching-to-the-test in high school. I think their case doesn’t hold up to serious scrutiny. First, the MCAS is not a serious barrier for most students, and my understanding is that general teaching-to-the-test for 10th graders is quite limited. For those few students who are struggling and who do not pass the MCAS the first time, I think they are probably better off intensively reviewing the basics to ensure they can retain at least some of it, rather than moving on to more advanced classes in which they would likely only be lost. It’s also important to think about the impact this would have on students who do pass MCAS and graduate. For the many of our students who are college-bound, I think this initiative would basically not affect them much either way. The MCAS is not a barrier to those students. For students who are less academically inclined, I think it is very helpful to them to be able to signal there is a concrete standard they are able to meet – think about if you are a hiring manager at e.g. Target or Dunkin’ – it’s actually very helpful to you to be able to know that your applicant was able at least to meet a minimum graduation requirement. Supporters claim that this won’t lower graduation standards but that really doesn’t make any sense. If it doesn’t lower the standards, then how could it possibly accomplish any of the things they claim to want?

The Governor and the Secretary of Education agree and are opposing this initiative. Massachusetts, by some measures, is the Number 1 State in the country for K-12 education. I am not sure how consequential this initiative is, but when you are at the top, it seems like there’s much more room to move down than up. I am a NO on this one.

YES on Question 3, A union for rideshare drivers

This one would allow drivers who spend a lot of time driving for Uber and Lyft to collectively bargain with the companies. In general, collective bargaining can help workers bargain for better working conditions or better pay. On the other hand, sometimes workers bargain for things that help them at the expense of society, like bargaining to inhibit labor-saving technology in their industry to protect their jobs.

This initiative sets up something called “sectoral bargaining,” where all the drivers bargain on one side against all the apps together on the other, which is rare in the United States but more common in Europe.

If this passes, there will almost certainly be lawsuits over it, so it would likely not be implemented for a while. Overall, this seems like a worthwhile experiment, though it may also raise the prices of rides somewhat. Admittedly, I don’t use these services much so it doesn’t affect me that strongly. On balance, I think I am a YES, but I would definitely understand why someone would disagree.

NO on Question 4, Legalization and Regulation of Psychedelic Substances

This one would legalize at-home possession and supervised use of certain psychedelics. The most important thing to know here is that this would not legalize the retail sale of these psychedelics – we would not end up with shops everywhere like we did with marijuana legalization. What would be legal is home-growing, and supervised use on-site at what are effectively therapy offices. Psychedelics are powerful substances that can be immensely helpful for certain people’s mental health struggles. But they can’t be both incredibly powerful and also harmless – gotta pick a lane. I think I am for the general concept of careful use of medical psychedelics, but against adding more different ways that folks can permanently mess up their lives if not careful. Because this also allows home growth and non-retail sharing, I suspect the balance of benefits and harms is not overall favorable here. I am a NO on this one.

YES on Question 5, Minimum Wage for Tipped Employees

Under current law, there is a special low minimum wage for tipped workers that is different from the general minimum wage. This creates the system where you effectively “have to” tip at various places or else you are not being fair. This initiative would replace that system by gradually raising the minimum wage for tipped workers to match the minimum wage for all other workers. There is some sort of complicated language about the transition period but fundamentally, this is what it does.

I think the current system is very unfair, so I support replacing it. Opponents claim this would raise prices, but really it would only raise menu prices – the total price you actually pay should work out about the same. I am a YES on this one.

See you out there on November 5th!