Editor’s Note: History has proven that the success of Election Day ballot questions depends on details and explanations. If the specifics of each question are too convoluted, voters will be understandably frustrated that there are no clear explanations. To clearly inform readers so that they can make sound judgments on Election Day, Sampan is providing this handy guide to the four ballot questions: 1) a constitutional amendment adding an additional 4% state tax on income over $1 million; 2) a proposed law impacting dental insurance; 3) a proposed law impacting alcohol sales; 4) a referendum to keep or repeal a law recently passed by the legislature that allows all drivers to obtain a license regardless of immigration status. Making decisive conclusions regarding these ballot questions will provide the winning candidates a clear vision of what the voters want. We report so you can decide. 

QUESTION 1:

The proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution, known as the Fair Share Amendment, would levy an additional 4% state income tax on the portion of annual taxable earnings in excess of $1 million. According to the state’s Executive Office of  Administration and Finance, the fiscal consequence could be an increase in annual state revenues by $1.2 billion in the short term or about 2.4% of the current annual state budget. 

Proponent: Cynthia Roy from Fair Share Massachusetts says that voting YES on Question 1 will lead to more opportunities for everyone. It ensures that the very richest in Massachusetts – those who make over $1 million a year – pay their fair share. The additional money is constitutionally guaranteed to go toward transportation and public education. Question 1 means every child can go to a great school. We can fix our roads, expand access to vocational training, and make public colleges more affordable. Excellent roads and schools help our small businesses grow, create new jobs, and build strong communities. Vote YES to make the very rich pay, not the rest of us.

Opponent: Paul D’Amore, Small Business Representative, claims that there is no guarantee that revenue from this massive tax increase will be used to increase spending on education and transportation. Question 1 considers one-time earnings—the sale of a home, an investment, a business, a pension, or an inheritance—to be income. This would force many residents into the new, extremely high tax bracket, depleting the savings of small-business owners and long-term homeowners whose retirement is dependent on their investments. Over 20,000 small businesses and family farmers are urging voters to reject Question 1.

QUESTION 2:

This proposed law would direct the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Division of Insurance to approve or disapprove the rates of dental benefit plans and would require that a dental insurance carrier meet an 83% annual aggregate medical loss ratio which measures the amount of premium dollars a dental insurance carrier spends on its members’ dental expenses and quality improvements, as opposed to administrative expenses. Insurers would be required to provide refunds, subject to adjustment by the commissioner, if they spend less than 83% on customer costs.

Proponent: According to Dr. Patricia Brown, A YES vote ensures better coverage and value for patients, instead of unreasonable corporate waste. For example, according to its own 2019 Form 990, Delta Dental (in Massachusetts alone) paid executive bonuses, commissions, and payments to affiliates of $382 million, while only paying $177 million for patient care. A YES vote would eliminate this inequity. Meanwhile, Section 2(d) of the law specifically disallows increases above the consumer price index without state approval, so the customers shouldn’t worry about the increase in insurance premiums. Medical insurers are required to spend 88% of their revenue on patient care. Why shouldn’t dental insurers pay at least 83%?

Opponent: Louis Rizoli, Committee To Protect Public Access To Quality Dental Care, indicates that this question will increase premium costs by 38% for Massachusetts families and employers, and could result in thousands of people losing access to dental care. With consumer prices soaring, we don’t need a new regulation that will increase costs and decrease choice.

QUESTION 3:

In the third ballot question, the number of liquor licenses an organization or individual can hold would increase from 9 to 12 in 2023; to 15 in 2027; and to 18 in 2031. Seven of those licenses would allow the sale of all liquor and spirits, the rest would allow the sale of beer and wine. In certain circumstances, the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission may accept a fine instead of suspending a license under the State Liquor Control Act, varying from a fine based on gross profits from alcoholic beverage sales to a fine based on total profits.

Proponent: A YES vote fulfills consumer desire for expanded convenience in a reasonable and balanced manner that also protects against illegal sales. By allowing alcoholic beverage retailers to accept valid out-of-state IDs, Massachusetts also supports state tourism, and brings the the state into line with other states.

Opponent: Our alcohol licensing laws do need serious reforms, but this ballot measure is not the answer. It offers an incomplete solution to a complex problem, doing little to promote competition or expand consumer choice.

QUESTION 4:

Those who cannot provide proof of lawful presence can obtain a license by providing proof of their identity, date of birth, residency, and meeting all other requirements, including a road test and proof of insurance. This law does not allow people who cannot provide proof of lawful presence in the United States to obtain a “Real ID.”  A “YES” vote would keep the current law in effect, whereas a “NO” vote would overturn it.

Proponent: All drivers in Massachusetts, regardless of immigration status, can apply for licenses and pass required tests (by providing proof of identity, date of birth, and residency). A YES vote means safer roads and better tools for law enforcement to do their jobs.

Opponent: The registry of Motor Vehicles does not have the capability or expertise necessary to verify documents from other countries and notes that, if this bill becomes law, Massachusetts drivers’ licenses will no longer confirm that a person is who they say they are. The law will also significantly increase the likelihood that non-citizens will register to vote.  Getting a ballot initiative requires 40,120 certified signatures, with no more than 10030 signatures from a single county.