This article was co-written by Rachael Dziaba, Brooke Jones, Neha Kalra, Jacqui Schlesinger, and Aidan Scully
When a voter in Massachusetts takes their ballot from their mailbox before Nov. 8 or at their polling place on Nov. 8, they will be met with a series of choices, mostly divided along uniquely partisan lines. Five races for statewide executive offices will be joined by one race each for state representative, state senator, and representative in Congress. Depending on the county, sheriffs’ and county commissioners’ races may round out the ballot, or additional positions may fill the page.
But these questions, quite literally, tell only one side of the story.
On the back of voters’ ballots this year are printed four questions — one proposed constitutional amendment, two initiative petitions, and one veto referendum — each of which could stand to change the landscape of state politics. These questions cover a broad range of topics, from driver’s licenses to dental insurance, from alcohol sales to the tax code itself. On these questions messaging is everything, and as the battle lines harden shortly before Election Day will finally settle these disputes.
Question One: Additional Tax on Income Over One Million Dollars
The first of the four ballot questions this year proposes a tax raise for people with incomes over $1 million. This proposed “millionaires tax,” called the Fair Share Amendment Act, presents Massachusetts voters with the opportunity to actualize the mentality of “tax the rich” and has generated much controversy as a result.
The current tax rate for Massachusetts citizens sits at a flat 5% of annual income. The Fair Share Amendment would amend the Massachusetts State Constitution to create an additional 4% tax on the portion of a person’s income over $1 million, creating a total tax rate of 9% on income above $1 million. The estimated $2 billion in new revenue generated from this tax would be slotted exclusively for spending related to education and public transportation improvements.
To be clear, most Massachusetts citizens would not be affected by this tax increase: The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center estimates that less than 0.7% of households have incomes high enough to be taxable under the Fair Share Amendment.
Proponents of the Fair Share Amendment emphasize this reality, arguing that this tax increase will not affect most Massachusetts citizens but will ensure that the rich finally pay their fair share to maintain the state’s services and infrastructure.
For years, they argue, working- and middle-class people in the commonwealth have struggled to get by while millionaires and billionaires have only grown richer and richer. During the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic, when small businesses and working-class families suffered most, billionaires in Massachusetts saw a net wealth increase of about $17 billion. To its supporters, the Fair Share Amendment is an attempt to tackle those inequities, to ensure that the richest of the rich contribute to the economy that they are directly benefiting from.
But the Fair Share Amendment does not only seek to address economic inequality: The amendment’s supporters argue that this initiative will not only tax the rich but also generate much-needed revenue to invest in affordable higher education and improve the quality of the state’s public transportation system.
Opponents of the amendment largely disagree. They see the Fair Share Amendment not as an investment in the future but rather as a ruinous recipe for economic disaster. A dramatic and sudden increase in taxation, the argument goes, will only threaten Massachusetts’ economic recovery post-pandemic. Rather than face heightened taxation, Massachusetts millionaires will flee the state, endangering the long-term competitiveness of the state’s economy.
Furthermore, some argue that the revenue generated by the Fair Share Amendment will not actually fund any tangible improvements in state education or transportation systems. Although the wording of the amendment specifically allocates the money to those sectors, opponents argue that, in actuality, this money will function more as a “blank check” for the government, operating under only a facade of beneficial state investment.
The Fair Share Amendment — and the philosophy of taxing the rich — has generated and continues to generate much controversy. On Nov. 8, Massachusetts voters will be faced with a question that will force them to fundamentally examine their consciences and priorities.
Will they vote “yes,” propelling Massachusetts into the future and laying the groundwork for a more equitable society? Or will they vote “no,” taking the precautionary route and ensuring that an already limp economy doesn’t spiral out of control?
There is no way to know in advance, but the decision Massachusetts voters make will likely not only affect the tax policy in the state: It will set a precedent for the rest of the nation and guide the creation of U.S. fiscal policy for years to come.
Question Two: Regulation of Dental Insurance
On Election Day, voters across Massachusetts will also have the opportunity to determine their state’s policy at the polls through Ballot Question Two. This initiative proposes a law which would require dental insurance companies to allocate more of their money toward healthcare and be more transparent about their overall expenditures.
To expand on the first point — the way that money itself is spent — the law would require that a company’s medical loss ratio for oral care be at least 83%. This means that, out of the premiums they collect, they must spend 83% or more of the total on providing actual healthcare, while 17% or less can go to “administrative expenses” — a broad category of topics encompassing marketing, charitable donations, taxes, and the paychecks of employees. The commissioner of the Division of Insurance should disapprove of MLRs under 83%, but if they were to get by, excess premiums would go straight back to those who paid them.
As for the second part of the initiative — promoting transparency — if the law were passed, dental benefit plans would have to submit information about their expenses to the commissioner, including an “annual comprehensive financial statement.” Additionally, fiscal information would be made public. This is a great leap from the status quo. Currently, Massachusetts state law says 88% of medical premiums have to actually be spent on medical care. However, there’s no minimum medical loss ratio for dental care, so companies have the freedom to determine exactly where their spending goes.
In terms of costs and potential drawbacks, opponents, including insurance companies such as Delta Dental, which has single-handedly spent $4.5 million on the vote “no” campaign, say that implementing this law could be expensive, raising costs for consumers. In a state already suffering from existing oral care inequities, making access less affordable could very well exacerbate the problem, leading to negative public health implications.
At the same time, it is also possible that this situation may never arise, argue the initiative’s supporters. These include the American Dental Association, local oral care providers, and orthodontist Mouhab Rizkallah, who has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the vote “yes” campaign. The proposed law itself states that dental plan carriers cannot change their base rates — the cost of the most affordable plan a company offers. It says: “The commissioner shall disapprove any proposed changes to base rates that are excessive, inadequate, or unreasonable in relation to the benefits charged,” although it is unclear what exact criteria these adjectives will be based upon.
Actors unaffiliated with the law agree on a similar sentiment. Evan Horowitz, the Executive Director of Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis, said that the law implies no likely impact on consumer cost. The state government has also stated that it would not be expensive for them either. In their analysis of proposed law, the Executive Office of Administration and Finance declared, “The proposed measure has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finance.”
The future of this initiative lies entirely in the hands of Massachusetts citizens this Election Day. If they vote “no,” nothing will change in the state’s dental insurance landscape. But, if they vote “yes,” by January 1, 2024, the law will go into effect, and the way that these insurance companies fund the healthcare of the state’s citizens will be reshaped for the near future.
Question Three: Expanded Availability of Licenses for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages
Ballot Question 3, the Change to Alcohol Licensing Initiative, is a combination of many regulation changes surrounding the sale of alcohol at places other than bars and restaurants. It will mix up the system by changing the number of licenses a company can have, banning self checkout options, and expanding acceptable IDs to out of state licenses. Despite its seemingly low-stakes changes, the question has large interest groups in support and has become a divided issue. Though it appears to be of lesser public interest than initiatives like Question #4, it can serve as a gauge for the appetite of the public on reforming the regulation of consumer industries.
The question came about through an indirect initiated state statute, a type of initiative through which citizens gain signatures for a proposed law which the state legislature chooses not to act on, putting it on the ballot instead. If a “yes” vote wins on Nov. 8, this piecemeal initiative would become a law.
This law would mostly affect off-site alcohol sales, or stores that sell alcohol to be consumed elsewhere. They would be directly affected by changes to licensing and fines. Currently, a company can own no more than nine “all alcoholic beverages” or “beer and wine” licenses for their business. However, this initiative would increase that number incrementally to 18 by 2031. It would also limit the number of licenses owned by an entity that apply to all alcoholic beverages to seven, assuming they currently own no more than seven. While these changes may seem to greatly impact the landscape of liquor licenses in the Commonwealth, in reality most stores including large chains don’t approach the current or proposed license limits, according to a report from the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University.
The larger change for off site alcohol sellers is through the new fee structure. When stores sell alcohol to underage consumers, they violate their licenses and face a fee instead of having their license suspended. This fee is currently calculated based on daily gross profits from alcohol sales, but the proposed initiative will change this to total daily profits, leading to increased fines for multi-purpose stores.
Alcohol purchasers, both in state and out of state residents, would find changes to their experience as well. Self-checkout would be banned for all alcohol purchases under the new rules, requiring purchasers to interact with a sales associate for identification. New ID regulations would also be in place, allowing Massachusetts retailers to finally accept out of state licenses as a valid form of identification. Massachusetts is the only state in the country that doesn’t currently allow this.
While many of these changes are a part of calls for alcohol sales reform, the Tufts report notes that they “would have a real but limited impact on the landscape of alcohol sales across Massachusetts.” In fact, Food Stores for Consumer Choice, the opponents of the initiative, argued in their submission for the Voter Information Guide that the proposal was an “incomplete solution to a complex problem.” They see the new restrictions as overly specific and unfairly targeted towards stores that sell non alcohol products. While they want to see alcohol reform across Massachusetts, they encourage a “no” vote alongside companies like Cumberland Farms in favor of potential reform later in the legislature.
On the other side of the issue is the 21st Century Alcohol Reform Committee, the proposer and main supporter of the initiative. They have worked with the Massachusetts Packing Stores Association, a nonprofit lobbying group for independent alcohol retailers in MA, to raise nearly $900,000 in support of the bill. Support for the bill is centered around ensuring the safe purchase of alcohol, reinforcing the licensing structure, punishing sales to minors, and allowing out of state ID holders to buy alcohol to promote tourism and the economy. Individual towns can also still place their own limits on alcohol license amounts.
With both sides hoping for reform, it is likely that some alcoholic beverage sales legislation will be enacted in the Commonwealth within the next few years, changing the rules around local retail and reimagining the customer experience. What remains to be seen is whether this specific package of alcohol reforms will win the voters’ favor when they go to the polls on Election Day.
Question Four: Eligibility for Driver’s Licenses
Will residents without lawful status in Massachusetts be able to obtain driver’s licenses? Massachusetts voters will decide whether a policy allowing just that, passed by the state House and Senate in May of this year, will be enacted in the final question on the ballot this election. If the measure passes, starting July 1, 2023, legal immigration status will no longer be a barrier to receiving a driver’s license as long as all other requirements, including proof of identity and residency, are fulfilled. The summary of the law, included on ballots, outlines its technicalities, emphasizing that no public record will be created about residents’ immigration status, and the registrar and Secretary of the Commonwealth would be responsible for guaranteeing that noncitizens are not automatically registered to vote in the process of obtaining licenses.
This question has had a long journey to the ballot. First introduced in 2019 as the Work and Family Mobility Act, the current legislative session’s iteration of this bill, H.4805, was finally enacted by both the House and Senate on May 26, 2022, but vetoed by Governor Baker the next day. However, the state legislature then overrode the Governor’s veto with a two-thirds majority vote. In response, residents unhappy with the law organized a veto referendum petition, a process that allows bills passed by the Massachusetts legislature to be put before voters with at least 40,119 signatures. Collecting 71,883 verified signatures, opposition groups successfully guaranteed the law’s appearance on this year’s ballot, where its future will finally be decided by Massachusetts voters.
While the law focuses specifically on undocumented residents, the outcome of this ballot question carries broader implications for immigrants in Massachusetts, potentially paving the way for noncitizen voting in the state and further recognition of the rights of those without legal status. Furthermore, the determination of who can drive on Massachusetts roads affects all residents. For this reason, advocates for voting “yes” argue that keeping the law will make roads safer by providing law enforcement with more tools to keep track of drivers and enforce laws. Formerly known as Driving Families Forward, the Yes on 4 For Safer Roads coalition points to the decrease in hit-and-run crashes in California and Connecticut and drop in uninsured driving in Utah and New Mexico after the passage of similar legislation.
Groups such as the ACLU, Service Employees International Union of MA, and Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition have endorsed the law, and most notably, over 60 law enforcement officials, including all major city police chiefs and most sheriffs and district attorneys, support the law. Beyond safer roads, supporters of the law emphasize the immense importance of the ability to drive for immigrants’ economic security and overall well-being as many residents without legal status rely on cars to get to work, school, and doctor’s appointments.
On the other hand, vocal opponents to the law have pushed for its repeal. Gov. Baker explained that he vetoed the bill because the Registry of Motor Vehicles doesn’t have the ability to reliably verify international documents, and consequently, driver’s licenses could no longer be used to verify someone’s identity with certainty. Additionally, the Governor argued that by preventing the Registry from creating records of residents’ citizenship status, the law would restrict the state’s ability to make sure only citizens are voting, especially due to the automatic enrollment of voters while obtaining driver’s licenses. Similarly, the Republican candidate for governor, Geoff Diehl, as well as state Reps. Coleen Garry and Marc Lombardo have endorsed the repeal of the law.
Vote No on Question 4, a campaign funded by Fair and Secure Massachusetts, alleges that the law diminishes public safety, not only because of Governor Baker’s argument that it makes it harder to verify residents’ identity but also by encouraging more illegal immigration to Massachusetts, though their campaign website supplies few facts to back up these claims. Echoing concerns about illegal voting, opponents of the law also assert that the law is unfair to those who have legally immigrated or become naturalized citizens.
Even the question’s appearance on the ballot is not without contention. The Secretary of the Commonwealth’s guide to the ballot questions, which is sent to all Massachusetts voters, doesn’t contain information about Question #4 because it was submitted after the printing of the book. From the complex life of this bill to its political controversy, this Novemeber, Massachustts voters will reach a decision on the years-long debate over driver’s licenses for undocumented residents that will shape the future of advocacy for noncitizen rights and driving laws in Massachusetts.
Conclusion
None of these questions will be decided for the last time on Election Day; in most cases, these questions are likely to be only the beginning of much larger and more existential debates.
This is especially true for the various other questions that some voters will find on their ballots on Election Day. In twenty house districts, voters will be asked to respond to Question #5, asking them whether they support single-payer healthcare in Massachusetts. Some will also be asked about legislative transparency in Question #6. And this doesn’t count the assortment of local questions that will be asked on Election Day.
While six statewide offices and 200 legislative offices are on the ballot on Nov. 8, these questions, which grant much more direct authority over state local law to the voters, may be a better litmus test of public opinion than a two-party election in such a polarized political climate. But to what extent the voters exercise that authority will come down to whether they find any argument particularly convincing — or whether they choose to flip their ballots over at all.
The Massachusetts state general elections will take place on Nov. 8, 2022.
Image by Allaura Osborne created for use by the Harvard Political Review.
