Politics & Government
Massachusetts Ballot Questions November 2018: What To Know
So you're planning on voting in the Nov. 6 Midterm Election in Massachusetts and need to figure out what the ballot questions mean?
BOSTON, MA — So you're planning on voting in the Midterm Election in Massachusetts and need to figure out what the ballot questions mean? We've got you covered.
Three questions that everyone in the state will see on the Nov. 6 ballot include whether the State should regulate the number of patients nurses are permitted to care for, whether to remove "gender identity" from the list of groups protected by law from discrimination and whether something should be done about campaign finance spending.
After the polls close head here to check out how the state voted: Election 2018 MA Ballot Questions: What Passed
Find out what's happening in Beacon Hillfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Here's what's up for a vote:
QUESTION 1. Patient-nurse limits
This proposal would limit how many patients could be assigned to each registered nurse in hospitals and other healthcare facilities. The maximum number of patients per nurse would vary by type of unit and level of care.
Find out what's happening in Beacon Hillfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
The proposal would also require every facility to develop a tool to evaluate the condition of each patient, which would be used by nurses in deciding whether the limited number of patients should be lower than the limits of the proposed law at any given time, according to a summary by the Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin's office.
The Health Policy Commission would oversee the implementation and evaluation of the law if it is ad0pted. Hospitals failing to comply with the limits could get a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation, according to the summary from Galvin's office.
Read the ballot measure here.
A yes vote would limit the number of patients that could be assigned to each registered nurse in hospitals and certain other health care facilities across the state.
A no vote would make no change in current laws.
The argument for a yes vote: There are currently no limits on the number of patients nurses can tend, aside from intensive-care nurses, who are permitted to have only two patients at a time. The Massachusetts Nurses' Association has been trying to get limits on the number of patients for years, arguing it would be safer for patients.
The argument for a no vote: The proposal could require state hospitals to hire thousands more registered nurses. That would mean either letting go of some other medical professionals that make up the hospital staff, or spending a lot more money, as the Boston Globe editorial board points out in their editorial against the move.
Related:
Who opposes it? A number of the state’s hospitals, along with dozens of medical organizations and the Coalition to Protect Patient Safety.
Other info: RNs in Massachusetts hospitals make an average of $90,000 a year, and the hospitals would need to hire between 2,286 to 3,101 more of them, according to an independent analysis of Question 1 by the state Health Policy Commission, released earlier this month.
WGBH held a 19-minute debate on the question:
QUESTION 2. Election spending
This proposal would create a commission to consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution "to establish that corporations do not have the same Constitutional rights as human beings and that campaign contributions and expenditures may be regulated," according to a summary from Galvin's office.
It would be a long process.
The proposal would establish a volunteer commission to research and issue a report regarding the impact of political spending in Massachusetts; any limitations on the state’s ability to regulate corporations; recommendations for constitutional amendments; create an analysis of constitutional amendments introduced to Congress; and make recommendations for advancing proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution, according to the summary.
The commission would be subject to the state Open Meeting and Public Records laws and the Secretary of the Commonwealth would be required to deliver the commission’s report to the state legislature, the U.S. Congress and the president.
Read the ballot measure here.
A yes vote would create the citizens commission to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to limit the influence of money in elections and establish that corporations do not have the same rights as human beings.
A no vote would not create this commission.
The argument for a Yes vote: Supporters of the measure argue that average people don’t have the money to compete against billion-dollar companies when it comes to influencing elections. They argue that corporations are not human and so should not have the same rights in governments. Amending the U.S. Constitution is the only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision in the landmark U.S. constitutional law case Citizens United Vs. FCC. The decision, in 2010,said that the free speech clause of the First Amendmentto the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. (Read more about the case here: Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission).
Who supports the proposal? A group called American Promise founded by Concord resident Jeff Clements. Advocates are working toward passage of the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to this end.
Who opposes it? No group actively opposes the measure, but the group Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance have been describing why they aren't for it.
The argument against: It could send a dangerous message to the rest of the country, argues Bradley Smith founder of the Institute of Free Speech. Smith said it would be the same as saying a labor union has no right to speak on behalf of its members, or a corporation has no right ask for a warrant before police search its premises. "We protect corporate rights because that protects the rights of the individuals," he told WBUR News.
Other info: "Question 2 represents a new tack in a nationwide effort to curb the influence of corporations and big-money donors, which were unleashed in the form of super PACs following the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission," according to State House News.
Voters in four states have passed non binding resolutions saying they want a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. What's different in Massachusetts, is that it goes a step beyond by including provisions to form a volunteer commission with deadlines to move the debate along.
Radio Boston hosted a 50-minute debate on the issue, check it out here:
QUESTION 3. Transgender anti-discrimination
Ballot Question 3 concerns the country’s first statewide referendum on transgender rights, passed in 2016 and signed into law by Gov. Charlie Baker.
The law added the term "gender identity" to the list of groups protected against discrimination in places like hotels or stores, a list that now includes race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex disability and ancestry.
"Gender identity” is defined as a person’s sincerely held gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior, whether it differs from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.
The law requires any place that has separate areas for males and females (such as restrooms) to allow access to and full use of those areas consistent with a person’s gender identity. The law also prohibits the owner or manager from using advertising or signage that discriminates on the basis of gender identity.
The state Commission Against Discrimination would oversee the rules or policies and make recommendations to carry out this law, according to a summary from Galvin's office.
Read the ballot measure here.
A yes vote would keep in place the current law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity in places of public accommodation.
A no vote would repeal this provision.
The argument for a Yes vote: The "Yes on 3" campaign says that preserving the law is about basic human dignity. Transgender advocacy groups argue that trans individuals regularly face harassment and sometimes assault in bathrooms.
The argument against:
The "No on 3" campaign says the law could put women and children at risk in bathrooms and locker rooms because it does not require a person to be on hormone treatment or have gender reassignment surgery.
Who supports the measure? The transgender advocacy group, Freedom For All Massachusetts, is leading the effort to keep the 2016 law.
Who opposes it? The Massachusetts Family Institute says on its website that it is "dedicated to strengthening the family and affirming the Judeo-Christian values upon which it is based."
Other info: One study found there is no relationship between laws allowing transgender people to use the bathroom matching their identity and criminal incidents that occur in bathrooms in the Commonwealth.
The District of Columbia and 19 states, including all of New England, have protections for transgender people in places open to the public.
WGBH's Greater Boston hosted a 10-minute debate on the issue. Check it out here:
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.
