MA Ballot Questions 2018: What We Are Voting On

BOSTON, MA — Proposals to mandate nurse staffing levels, repeal transgender accommodations protections and investigate potentially changing the U.S. Constitution will be decided by Massachusetts voters on Nov. 6.

Secretary of State William Galvin on Monday announced the numbers assigned to three ballot questions.
Proposed mandatory nurse staffing levels will be Question 1 [pdf] on the ballot. That debate will pit much of the health care industry against the Massachusetts Nurses Association.

Question 2 [pdf] will ask voters if they want to establish a commission to look into the impact of political spending in Massachusetts and recommendations on potential amendments to the U.S. Constitution around that subject.

Question 3 will give voters the option to repeal the transgender public accommodations law that Gov. Charlie Baker signed in 2016.

The menu of proposals headed for the ballot was halved in June when Baker signed a "grand bargain" law which spurred activists to drop ballot questions addressing the minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, and sales tax reduction. The Supreme Judicial Court earlier in June ruled a proposed income surtax was ineligible for the ballot.

A referendum on the 2016 statute, Question 3 followed a different process than the other two ballot questions, which are citizens' initiatives. A yes vote on Question 3 would preserve the law granting people access to the public restrooms corresponding to their gender identity. A no vote would repeal it.

Led by the Massachusetts Family Institute, opponents of the transgender law mobilized two years ago, arguing that the law raises safety and privacy concerns. Supporters of the transgender law contend it has extended civil rights without negative safety consequences.

"For two years our transgender friends, coworkers, and neighbors in Massachusetts have been protected from harassment and discrimination because of this law," Freedom for All Massachusetts spokesperson Matt Wilder said in a statement. "Despite our opponents best attempts to scare voters, the facts are on our side. There has been no uptick in public safety incidents as a result of this law, and in fact, this law has made our communities safer. Equipped with the facts, we know Massachusetts voters will choose dignity and fairness on election day and vote 'Yes' to uphold this critical law."

Yvette Ollada, a spokeswoman for the group Keep Massachusetts Safe, blamed the law for incidents involving men illegally videotaping or photographing women in changing rooms or restrooms. It is a crime to secretly photograph someone's intimate parts. In two of the three incidents Ollada referenced, the men were arrested but without the transgender access law they likely would not have been able to access the facilities, she claimed.

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.

"We need to be able to regulate the undue influence of money in our political system," said Jeff Clements, a Concord resident and the volunteer president of American Promise Initiative, a national organization backing the Massachusetts effort.

If passed, the question would establish a 15-member commission appointed by the state's elected leaders that would make recommendations for advancing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to regulate corporations' political power. Sen. William Brownsberger was the only member of the Senate to vote against a related resolution in the Senate last month. Brownsberger argued the language in the resolution went "radically beyond reversing Citizen's United," and could deny freedom of the press to newspapers while taking away the right to political advertising, which elected officials rely upon to promote themselves.

Clements disputed that the goals of the amendment supporters conflict with newspapers' abilities to operate.
About 200 municipalities have passed local initiatives in support of stricter controls on corporate speech, according to Johannes Epke, counsel for the initiative.

Unlike most other political action committees in Massachusetts, ballot campaigns can raise unlimited sums from corporate donors. The People Govern, Not Money ballot committee, which is chaired by Clements, has not taken corporate money and does not intend to, according to Epke.

An eleventh hour compromise brokered by Needham Democrat Rep. Denise Garlick avoided a nurses staffing ballot question in 2014 and instituted mandatory one nurse per patient staffing ratios in internal care units.

Four years later, the Massachusetts Nurses Association was more determined to see a similar ballot question placed before voters. Officials at the union were not seeking a compromise, they said.

Interest groups on both sides of the issue have already touted studies and appealed directly to the public in attempts to steer voters one way or the other.

The Coalition to Protect Patient Safety, a ballot committee, has the backing of the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association, which estimated the proposal could add roughly $1 billion per year in new costs. The Committee to Ensure Safe Patient Care, which claims mandatory staffing levels are needed to improve care, has financial support from the Massachusetts Nurses Association.

"This has been a long time coming, and nurses have been advocating for a YES for patient safety for decades," Donna Kelly-Williams, a registered nurse at the Cambridge Hospital Birth Center and president of the Massachusetts Nurses Association, said in a statement Monday. "As an active bedside nurse, I see it every day on the hospital floor and I hear it every day from my colleagues across the state. It’s time for hospital executives to put patient care over profits."

The nurses were the only one of the three ballot campaigns not to use any paid signature gatherers. A spokeswoman for the union said none were used.

The effort to repeal the transgender law used hundreds of volunteers to collect signatures, Keep Massachusetts Safe reported in 2016. The majority of the signatures were gathered by volunteers, according to Ollada. Question 2 proponents employed some paid signature-gatherers along with about 750 volunteers to collect their necessary signatures, according to Clements.

Photo by Mike Carraggi, Patch staff