With few incumbents facing challengers, newcomers having cleared primaries and facing little to no opposition in the final election, and Democrats dominating public polling in statewide races, this year’s November ballot stands out for the four questions being put to voters for up or down votes.
There questions range in topics from a so-called “millionaires” tax to dental insurance and licenses for undocumented immigrants. For activists and special interest groups, ballot questions are an avenue toward enacting policy changes they’re seeking, particularly when lawmakers on Beacon Hill are uninterested in taking up the issues themselves.
Once activists and special interest groups are able to clear several hurdles, from legally acceptable language to gathering enough signatures to get their questions onto the ballot, the voters make their calls.
Following is a breakdown on what Massachusetts voters will be deciding on Tues., Nov. 8, or sooner if they’ve mailed in their ballot or participated in early voting.
Question 1: Millionaires tax
This involves a proposed amendment to the state constitution that, if approved, would establish an additional 4 percent state income tax on annual taxable income in excess of $1 million, which could see an increase of 80 percent on certain taxpayers. The money pulled in from this new levy, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, would be designated for public education, public colleges and universities, public transportation, and repairing and maintaining roads and bridges. Proponents say it could raise $1.2 billion, or 2.4 percent of the current state budget. If in the aftermath of an approval, taxpayers move their home or business to another state, that number could be lower. If passed, the new tax will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2023.
A “yes” vote will amend the state constitution and impose the new tax. A “no” vote will result in no change.
Proponents say a “yes” vote means “you will make sure that the very richest in Massachusetts — those who make over $1 million a year — pay their fair share.” Opponents are urging a “no” vote, arguing that the ballot question “nearly doubles the state income tax rate on tens of thousands of small-business owners, large employers, and retirees.” They also note there is no guarantee the revenue will be directed toward education and transportation accounts, saying that “politicians are giving themselves a blank check, with no accountability.”
Question 2: Dental insurance regulation
The proposal calls for a law that directs the insurance commissioner for Massachusetts to approve or disapprove the rates of dental benefit plans and requires dental insurance carriers to meet an annual aggregate medical loss ratio for its covered dental benefit plans of 83 percent. (The medical loss ratio measures the amount of premium dollars a dental insurance carrier spends on its members’ dental, rather than administrative, expenses.
A “yes” vote would regulate dental insurance rates. A “no” vote would make no change to the law.
Proponents say a “yes” vote expands consumer protection laws and ensures better coverage for patients, and cuts back on corporate waste. Opponents say the question could lead to an increase in costs for families and employers, and potential losses of access to dental care.
Question 3: Expanded availability of alcoholic beverage licenses for sale
This proposal seeks to increase the statewide limits on the combined number of licenses for sale of alcoholic beverages that any one retailer can own or control. A “no” vote would make no change to the laws on retailers selling alcoholic beverages.
Proponents say a “yes” vote means “package stores, convenience stores, supermarkets, superstore retailers, and others will be able to apply for additional licenses for their existing locations that do not currently sell alcohol and for new locations they open.”
Opponents say the ballot question “offers an incomplete solution to a complex problem, doing little to promote competition or expand consumer choice.”
Question 4: Eligibility for driver’s licenses
Beacon Hill legislators passed a law earlier this year allowing Massachusetts residents who cannot provide proof of a lawful presence in the US to obtain a standard driver’s license or a learner’s permit if they meet other qualifications, including a road test and insurance, as well as proof of identity and date of birth through at least two documents. The documents can include a valid, unexpired foreign passport or consular identification document, an unexpired driver’s license from any US state or territory, an original or certified copy of a birth certificate, or a marriage certificate or divorce decree. One of the documents must have a photo and one must include a date of birth.
A “yes” vote keeps the law in place. A “no” vote repeals the law.
Proponents say 17 states have passed similar laws, which have led to declines in uninsured drivers and hit-and-run crashes. They also note the law has been endorsed by a number of Massachusetts sheriffs, prosecutors, and police chiefs.
Opponents note that Beacon Hill lawmakers overrode Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto of the law. Baker “made it known that the Registry of Motor Vehicles does not have the capability or expertise necessary to verify documents from other countries.” They add the law is “patently unfair to those who have taken the time to immigrate” via legal means.
