欧美极品

欧美极品 — As Massachusetts voters prepare to go to the polls this fall, much of their focus is on pivotal federal contests for president and the Senate as well as down ballot races in local municipalities. 

However, Bay State voters will also have the opportunity to weigh in on five separate ballot questions that will shape K-12 education, drug policy, the restaurant industry, rideshare work, and even the regulation of the Massachusetts state legislature.

Past Massachusetts ballot questions have legalized marijuana for recreational use, upheld protections for transgender residents, and instituted a “millionaires’ tax” that allowed the commonwealth to provide free community college tuition and free school meals for students. This year’s questions similarly have the power to shape the future of the state. 

Evan Horowitz is the executive director of the Center for State Policy Analysis (cSPA) at Tufts University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life. cSPA is dedicated to nonpartisan research on Massachusetts policy, including providing guidance to voters on ballot initiatives ahead of statewide elections so that they know what their “yes” or “no” votes mean. 

Horowitz has released reports dedicated to each of the five questions on the 2024 ballot. Here is a summary of cSPA’s findings:

Question 1: Auditing the Massachusetts Legislature

A “yes” vote on Massachusetts Ballot Question 1 would empower the state auditor to investigate the Massachusetts Legislature. However, passage of the question could also trigger a stand-off with lawmakers.

cSPA’s report found that Question 1 is ultimately unlikely to increase legislative transparency—partly because of the legislature’s power to resist but also due to clear constitutional rules around the separation of powers.

Additionally, not all legislative activities will be subject to audit. For example, votes, debates, committee assignments, and policy priorities are all “core legislative functions” outside the auditor’s purview. (Legislative activities that might be subject to audit include more administrative activities, such as employee training rules, cybersecurity norms, and purchasing practices.)

When auditors in other states investigate legislative activities, they rely on cooperation from legislators. cSPA’s research did not uncover any examples of legislative audits conducted without legislative consent.

In response to a proposed audit, the legislature could delay, refuse to comply, or even defund the Auditor’s Office. In that case, the fight may shift to the courts, where the ultimate outcome is hard to predict.

“Even if this ballot question passes, it’s not clear the auditor will be able to use her new authority,” said Horowitz. “The legislature has a lot of ways to push back, and courts may be reluctant to intervene.”

.

Question 2: Eliminating the MCAS graduation requirement

A “yes” vote on Ballot Question 2 would let Massachusetts students graduate from high school without passing the 10th grade MCAS test or otherwise proving their readiness to the state. Its passage would make Massachusetts one of the few states without a common graduation requirement, whether in the form of a test or a standard curriculum.

While 10th graders would still take the MCAS, the stakes would be dramatically lower, potentially freeing teachers to focus on knowledge and skills that fall outside of test parameters.

“The impact of this ballot question hinges on the individual responses of over 300 local school districts,” Horowitz. “They’ll each need to craft appropriate standards for graduation, consistent with state learning expectations, while resisting the temptation to boost graduation rates by setting a low bar.”

The direct impact of eliminating MCAS would be limited. In any given year, several hundred high school students—or less than 1 percent of Massachusetts’ high school seniors—are unable to graduate because they fail to pass the MCAS or otherwise prove their readiness to the state. Students with cognitive disabilities and English language learners are among the most likely to struggle with the MCAS and could benefit most from more flexible measures of graduation readiness.

Letting districts set graduation requirements could make it hard to maintain educational standards across the state. Districts with low or falling graduation rates could be tempted to compensate by lowering expectations.

.

Question 3: A union for rideshare drivers

Ballot Question 3 would clear a path to unionization for rideshare drivers using an approach that’s largely untested in the United States. While allowing Uber and Lyft drivers to band together, it would likely face a legal challenge.

If the question passes, Massachusetts would be the first state to allow such unions.

“Many other countries allow unions like this, where workers and companies negotiate rules for a whole industry. The idea is perfectly sound,” says Horowitz. “But the fact that it’s never been done in the US creates a lot of uncertainty and raises the likelihood of resistance from business groups and union skeptics.”

The explicit goal is not just to enable unionization but to improve the welfare of rideshare drivers and “raise standards for the terms and conditions of work in this industry.” Notably, this ballot question covers workers who transport passengers using platforms like Uber and Lyft, not gig workers who provide food delivery or other services.

Ride share driver unionization would likely increase the cost of rides and therefore shrink demand. This would limit some of the known benefits of the apps, including reduced drunk driving and expanded mobility options.

Even if voters endorse Question 3, drivers may not be able to start forming unions right away. When the city of Seattle pursued a similar proposal in 2015, it was challenged in court and ultimately undone. 

Question 3 is long and detailed, but some of those small details could be pivotal. As an example, the number of drivers needed to create a union is very low—roughly 12.5 percent—which simplifies organization but risks the emergence of an unpopular union with limited driver support.

.

Question 4: Legalizing Psychedelic Drugs

A “yes” vote on Massachusetts Ballot Question 4 would legalize a group of naturally occurring psychedelic drugs—psilocybin, psilocyn, mescaline, DMT, and ibogaine—for use at home and eventually for use in a network of therapy centers.

“Two other states have legalized select psychedelics,” said Horowitz. “But Question 4 goes further, with therapy centers that can offer a wider array of psychedelic drugs.”

Psilocybin (found in “magic mushrooms”) shows promise as a treatment for some serious mental health conditions, including anxiety among patients with terminal illnesses. Psilocybin use is already decriminalized in some Massachusetts municipalities, including Somerville.

However, psychedelics are associated with some substantial harms. For instance, ibogaine can cause acute cardiac problems, while DMT (used in ) may have lasting neurological effects.

The rules for using psychedelics would be different from current Massachusetts laws around marijuana. Adults will not be able to purchase psychedelics at a retail outlet. They will need to grow their own, find a person willing to share, or use them at a licensed facility. 

However, treatment at these facilities would likely be expensive. That may encourage more at-home and personal use, where the lack of guidance and oversight brings heightened risk.

Additionally, federal authorities consider all these drugs illegal. Passing Question 4 could put Massachusetts at risk of a future federal backlash.

“Massachusetts voters need to decide if they want to be at the vanguard of this experiment,” said Horowitz.

.

Question 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers

Current Massachusetts wage laws allow restaurants to pay tipped workers as little as $6.75 per hour, if tips cover the rest of the $15 per hour state minimum wage. If Question 5 passes, the “tipped minimum wage” will be phased out, and businesses will need to directly pay the full minimum wage for their tipped workers.

Eliminating the tipped minimum wage would likely increase earnings for waitstaff, bartenders, and other tipped workers. A separate provision of Question 5 would allow tips to be shared with cooks, accountants, and other non-management staff.

Allowing tips to be shared with kitchen staff could help equalize pay between front- and back-of-house workers. However, this provision has generated opposition from some servers who prefer the current system.

Covering the full minimum wage (before tips) will raise costs for tip-dependent businesses, which will likely compensate with a mix of higher prices, new service fees, reduced hiring, increased automation, and potentially lower profits.

“Workers and restaurants will certainly feel the impact,” said Horowitz. “But the changes should be modest. Tipped workers will earn slightly more, and businesses will respond with new service charges and somewhat higher prices.”

No state has eliminated its tipped minimum wage in several decades making it hard to know how the transition will play out in the post-pandemic economy. The District of Columbia is currently phasing out its tipped wage, leading to experimentation among restaurants and a broad conversation among diners about the appropriate role and size of tips. 

.

cSPA is based at Tufts University and supported by Tisch College along with a diverse group of funding sources from across the political spectrum. These funders are not involved in cSPA’s research on the Massachusetts ballot questions.