Newton Marijuana Election: The Option With the Least Votes Won

In the November 6th marijuana ballot question election in Newton, there were two competing questions on the ballot, either to ban or to limit the number of stores in Newton. But there was actually a third implicit option of “8+” stores that voters could "choose" by voting “NO” on both ballot questions. This third option was promoted by a ballot committee heavily financed by marijuana companies wanting to open stores in Newton. In this three-way race, the “8+” store option almost certainly got the least amount of votes, but still carried the day.

How did this happen?

A slim majority of the Newton City Council, at the urging of the Mayor, decided to place on the ballot two competing questions that effectively created a three-way race between a “ban”, a limit of “2-4” stores, and voting “NO” on both questions to keep the default of 8+ stores (mandated by the state as per statewide Ballot Question #4 in 2016). The Newton Charter requires that either ballot question had to achieve over 50% in order to prevail, which is virtually impossible in a 3-way race. The 8+ option did not need to achieve 50% to win because it was the default option, leading to this undemocratic result. No other town in Massachusetts structured their ballot questions this way, and for good reason.

Let’s look at the numbers -- on Election Day last week, 39,967 votes were cast and 18,203 of those voted for the ban and 18,167 voted for the "2-4 store limit." This left a remainder of 3597 who voted "no" on both in order to have 8+ stores. Of course, the actual number of people who voted "no" on both ballot questions was higher than 3597 because an unknown portion of the "yes" vote for the "2-4 limit" was cast by supporters of the ban who voted for the "2-4 limit" as a backup. It is not known precisely how many of the votes were overlapping because the City of Newton did not count the votes that way. Even if Newton city officials never manage to provide the exact breakdown of the votes, it is safe to assume that “ban” supporters would have overwhelmingly preferred the "2-4 store limit" over “8+” stores. Combining those votes with “2-4” supporters, it is very clear that the vast majority of voters do not prefer “8+” stores. Yet that is the result from this flawed ballot structure. The marijuana companies who advertised heavily for this option will be happy, even if the voters are not.

It is of course possible that the ban and/or the “2-4” store limit would have still lost - even with the simpler ballot structure that was debated and narrowly rejected by the City Council. However, the campaigns would have had a much easier time making their pitch if they did not have to spend their limited energy educating confused voters on how to vote on these conflicting questions.