Election Day is officially one week away — Nov. 5 — and it’s important to know about what’s on your state’s ballot beyond just the presidential candidates. Massachusetts voters are tasked to vote on five ballot questions, all of which received a “No” vote by the State Senate or the House of Representatives before May 1, 2024. This time, the fate of the questions are up to MA voters. Text for the proposed laws for all the ballot can be found in its entirety on the Secretary of the Commonwealth Massachusetts website

Question 1 asks voters whether or not the State Auditor can audit the General Court Initiative. Currently, the state auditor needs the consent of the state legislator to audit it. A “Yes” vote would specify that the State Auditor wouldn’t need permission to inspect the accounts, programs, activities and functions of the entities within the state legislature. A “No” vote would make no change in the law. 

Those endorsing a “Yes” vote for Question 1 claim that there is a need for more transparency and it’s necessary in holding state legislators accountable. The Committee for Transparent Democracy is leading the campaign in getting this initiative passed. Neil Morrison a proponent and member of the committee, stated in the the voter’s guide that “The State Legislature is the only state entity refusing to be audited by the State Auditor’s office” and says “Legislative leaders claim it is sufficient for the Legislature to conduct audits of itself through a procured private vendor.” However, the Massachusetts legislature consistently ranks among the least effective and least transparent in the nation and is one of only four legislatures that exempt themselves from public records laws, Morrison says. The voter’s guide says passing Question 1 would “shine a bright light” on how taxpayer dollars are spent to “increase transparency, accountability and accessibility.” The initiative is endorsed by current State Auditor Diana DiZoglio (D) and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.

Those opposing Question 1 expressed concerns that it would violate the separation of powers as stated in the Massachusetts Constitution. Jerold Duquette, professor of political science at Central Connecticut State University, authored the opposition argument in the voter's guide. Duquette argues, if Question 1 passes, it would position the State Auditor as a “political actor” and influence the legislative process, “compromise the State Auditor’s ability to carry out her fundamental constitutional duty to conduct credible, independent, objective and non-partisan audits of state government departments and programs.” This initiative is also opposed by former State Auditor Suzanne Bump (D).

Question 1 would not have “discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances,” according to the voter’s guide published by William Francis Galvin, the Secretary of the Commonwealth. 

Question 2 seeks to eliminate the requirement that a student pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System tests to receive a high school diploma. While standardized testing is still required nationally, the MCAS would become used for diagnostic purposes, not as a requirement for high school graduation. Instead of MCAS tests, the proposed law would require students to complete coursework that meets state standards. 

Shelley Scruggs, a Lexington parent who filed the first petition regarding the MCAS graduation requirement, wrote the arguments for a ”Yes” vote on Question 2. She argues that the MCAS is a “one-size-fits-all exam that fails to measure other student achievement measures such as Grade Point Average, coursework and teacher assessments in determining if a student is allowed to graduate.” She adds that this initiative would encourage teachers to stop teaching to a test and lessen the burden students experience from standardized tests. Committee for High Standards Not High Stakes is leading the campaign, with the endorsements from unions Massachusetts American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations and Massachusetts Teachers Association, as well as U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) and other U.S. and State representatives. 

Opponents of Question 2 worry that approving the initiative could lead to lower graduation standards in some districts. They argue that it would “abandon” students who are struggling to pass basic assessments in math, English or science. Critics describe the proposed changes as “radical and untested,” insisting that they should be “carefully studied, designed and implemented by experts.” Current Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey (D) and Secretary of Education Patrick Tutwiler oppose the proposal, along with organizations such as the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, and the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education.

The proposed law is said to have no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

Question 3 places the fate of car share drivers in the hands of Massachusetts voters. Currently, car share drivers are legally not considered employees, rather as independent contractors and therefore can not form unions. The ballot question asks voters whether or not transportation network drivers should be granted the  right to form unions for collective bargaining with transportation network companies, like Uber and Lyft. If passed, the proposal would allow companies form multi-company associations to represent them when negotiating with unions, with the state overseeing the negotiation and approving or disapproving negotiated recommendations. The initiative would also establish the Employment Relations Board, where a company or driver organization is alleged with an unfair work practice. 

Roxana Rivera, Assistant to the President of Service Employees International Union 32BJ, wrote in support of the argument, stating that rideshare drivers in Massachusetts will be afforded the option to join a union and maintain “driver flexibility and independence.” Officials supporting the initiative includes U.S. Representative Jim McGovern (D) and U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D), as well Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell (D). Service Employees International Union and Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ have also endorsed the proposal. 

Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, opposing the measure, says the proposal would “raise the prices for all riders, funding union pockets not drivers’ pockets.” The conservative leaning group adds “This law gives politicians the right to set rules with no accountability and creates a new radical labor category that is inconsistent with federal labor law.”

There is no official campaign opposing Question 3. 

Question 4 proposes a law that would allow individuals the age of 21 or over, to grow, possess and use certain natural psychedelics under certain circumstances. The substances allowed to be purchased at an approved location for use under the supervision of a licensed facilitator, under the proposed law can be found in mushrooms (psilocybin and psilocin) and in plants (dimethyltryptamine, mescaline and ibogaine). Any other retail sale of natural psychedelic substances would be prohibited. Proceeds of psychedelic substances at licensed facilities would be subject to state sales tax and an additional 15% excise tax. Towns and cities would also be permitted to impose separate tax of up to two percent. Any revenue revived from the additional state excise tax, license application fees and penalties for violations of this proposed law would be allocated in a Natural Psychedelic Substances Regulation Fund.

Proponents of Question 4 say the proposed law provides “safe, regulated access to promising natural psychedelic medicines for treatment-resistant [Post-traumatic stress disorder], anxiety and depression.” Emily Oneschuk, Massachusetts for Mental Health Options' grassroots outreach director, U.S. Navy veteran and the author of the argument in the voters’ guide, adds  “Natural psychedelic medicine can also offer patients with a terminal diagnosis relief from end-of-life anxiety and help them find peace.”

Opponents of the measure argue that the initiative would “decriminalize psychedelics, open for-profit centers, allow for growth in a 12-foot by 12-foot area in homes and distribution statewide.” Dr. Anahita Dua, a surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital and Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School and the author for the opposing side says “A black market is inevitable with this amount of home growth.” Dua also raises concerns that passing Question 4 could increase incidents of driving under the influence of psychedelics, its potential for life-threatening cardiotoxicity and issues surrounding the staffing and care that centers should be responsible for. 

Question 5 is the last question that voters will be asked to weigh in, posing  the question of whether or not to gradually increase the minimum hourly wage an employer must pay a tipped worker. The increase would take place over a five year span. Currently, the Massachusetts minimum wage for tipped workers is $6.75 an hour. Under this proposed law, employers would be required to continue to pay tipped workers the difference between the state minimum wage and the total amount a tipped worker receives in hourly wages through 2028. If an employer pays its workers an hourly wage that is at least the state minimum wage, under the proposed law, that employer would be allowed to establish a “tip pool,” where all of the gratuities  given to tipped workers would be distributed among all the workers, including non-tipped workers.

Proponents of the questions say “tipped workers deserve the full minimum wage with tips on top [and] would create greater financial stability and predictability, acknowledging workers’ skills and professionalism.” Estefania Galvis of One Fair Wage Plus Tips MA that is leading the campaign in support of this initiative, adds that the question is fair for employers, saying it would “reduce employee turnover and improve service quality.” She says that it's “forcing consumers to cover their employees’ wages through tips. Tips should be a reward for good service, not a subsidy for low wages paid by large corporations.” Notably, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has endorsed the initiative.

Committee to Protect Tips is leading the campaign opposing the initiative. Doug Bacon, part of the opposition effort,  a former server and bartender and restaurant owner, cites that “State and Federal law guarantee [servers] the $15 hourly minimum wage with many earning over $40/hr and 90% reporting at least $20/hr.” He adds that attempts at similar proposed laws have had “catastrophic results.” Question 5 has been opposed by the Massachusetts Restaurant Association. 

It is now up to Massachusetts voters whether or not these questions should be approved. Election day is Nov. 5 and voting stations and the text for the proposed laws for the ballot can be found in its entirety on the Secretary of the Commonwealth Massachusetts website.