Everything You Want To Know About The Ballot Questions From The League Of Women Voters Of Amherst
Photo:LWVUtah.org
Source: League of Women Voters Amherst
Editor’s note: For NEPR’s guide to the ballot issues for the November 8 election, look here.
For NEPR’s guide to the general election, look here.
Amherst Town Council approved the warrant for the November 8 state election at their meeting on October 17. Polling places and the contents of the ballot can be viewed here. In-person early voting in the first-floor meeting room in Town Hall begins Saturday, October 22 and continues through Friday, November 4. Hours are listed here. Mail in ballots may be requested until November 1 at vote@amherstma.gov and must be returned to the drop box outside of Town Hall or received in the mail by 5:00 p.m. on November 8.
The League Of Women Voters Of Amherst Explains November 8 Ballot Questions
by Susan Millinger, League of Women Voters of Amherst. (Originally published in the October issue of the LWVA e-Bull). Additions from the web site of the Massachusetts Secretary of State.
The League of Women Voters Massachusetts (LWVMA) has taken no position on three of the four questions The League does advocate for Question 4, which is supported by a position on immigration adopted by concurrence at the 2019 State Convention. Our Legislative Action Committee endorsed and lobbied for House Bill 4805, which became law.
LWVMA-Sponsored Forums
LWVMA has sponsored three forums on Ballot Questions. They can be viewed here and here.
Ballot Question #4
LWVMA and the Transportation for Massachusetts Coalition (T4MA) organized an advocacy forum for Question #4. The panel discussion entitled “Safer Roads for a Stronger Commonwealth” on October 12 can be viewed here. LWVMA supports a YES vote on Question 4.
Yes On Four
A yes vote on Four would allow Massachusetts residents who cannot provide proof of lawful presence in the United States to obtain a driver’s license or permit if they meet the other requirements for doing so.
Pro: The central LWVMA argument is that roads will be safer when undocumented immigrants can get drivers’ licenses after showing knowledge of the rules of the road and getting insurance. The Registry of Motor Vehicles already issues licenses to people who cannot vote; it will be adding another group to holders of green cards and teenagers under 18.
Con: The opposition campaign focuses its concern on the possibility of enabling undocumented people to vote. The League of Women Voters encourages voting: for citizens. We would not be supporting this question if we thought noncitizens would be voting as a result. Seventeen other states have passed similar laws without any impact on who is voting.
Confusion: The Boston Globe pointed out recently, another confusing factor about this proposal. Massachusetts voters are used to voting no if they do not want an existing law rejected. But for Question 4, if you favor retaining the current law, which allows undocumented residents to acquire a driver’s license, you need to vote yes. Another possible source of confusion: the opposition campaign is “Fair and Secure Massachusetts”, similar to “Fair Share Massachusetts” the name of the campaign supporting Question 1 (“The Millionaire’s Tax”).
Note: Question 4 was not included in the Red Book from the Secretary’s Office because it was accepted as a ballot question after the date of printing. There is a special site for it at https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele22/information-for-voters-22/quest_4.htm .
Pros And Cons For Questions 1–3, On Which The League Takes No Position.
Ballot Question #1 (Additional Tax on Income Over One Million Dollars)
This proposed constitutional amendment would establish an additional 4% state income tax on that portion of annual taxable income in excess of $1 million. This income level would be adjusted annually, by the same method used for federal income-tax brackets, to reflect increases in the cost of living. Revenues from this tax would be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, for public education, public colleges and universities; and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges, and public transportation. The proposed amendment would apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023.
See the LWVMA statement on Question 1 here.
Fair Share Massachusetts says that the taxpayers would benefit tremendously from better roads and bridges and more funding for public schools, K through College/University and that the new tax would not be felt by 99% of Massachusetts tax-payers. The Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike campaign says it would drive businesses out of the state and harm many owners of small businesses.
Question 2: Regulation of Dental Insurance. Currently, those who sell medical insurance, because of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), have to refund part of the premiums they collect when they spend less than 88% of premiums on the medical costs of the people they insure. There is no limit for dental insurance plans. This law would set a minimum of 83% of premiums for payment of dental costs. If insurers pay less, they must refund the appropriate part of the premiums collected. Question 2 is broadly supported by organizations of dentists, and opposed by insurance companies.
Question 3: Expanded Availability of Licenses for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.
This proposed law would increase the statewide limits on the combined number of licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption (including licenses for “all alcoholic beverages” and for “wines and malt beverages”) that any one retailer could own or control: from 9 to 12 licenses in 2023; to 15 licenses in 2027; and to 18 licenses in 2031.
This is a confusing proposal about expanded availability of numbers and types of licenses that seems mainly to negatively impact stores that sell groceries and alcoholic beverages, which would be more limited than package stores in the number and type of licenses they could get.
The law would have three lesser components of interest. Any sale involving alcohol would have to be handled by a person: it could not go through an automated or self-checkout. In addition, fines for sales to minors would be based on the gross sales of a store, no longer solely on their gross sales of alcoholic beverages. In addition, out-of-state licenses could be taken as IDs, bringing Massachusetts into line with all other states in the USA.
For further information: consult Ballotpedia Massachusetts 2022 here, or the Secretary of State’s website here.