Repeal the requirement that students achieve a particular competency level on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam to graduate high school.

A “yes” vote supports repealing the requirement that students must achieve a certain competency level on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam to graduate high school.

A “no” vote opposes repealing the requirement that students must achieve a certain competency level on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam to graduate high school.

________________

Question 2 would repeal the requirement that students must achieve a certain competency level on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam to graduate high school. The initiative would require that students participate in the assessment program without achieving a certain competency level and complete all local or district graduation requirements (number of class credits, satisfactory grades, and regular attendance). If a student does not meet the minimum competency requirements when they take the MCAS in tenth grade, the proposed state law would require them to retake the assessment again in the eleventh or twelfth grade. The law would also allow any former Massachusetts high school student who was denied a diploma due to not meeting the competency requirements to request and receive a diploma if they had fulfilled all other local or district requirements. The initiative would also prohibit any sign of distinction on diplomas concerning how a student performed on the MCAS.

FOR: Committee to Eliminate Barriers to Student Success for All is leading the campaign in support of the initiative. The Massachusetts Teachers Association is the top donor to the campaign contributing all of the $1.1 million received by the committee. The teachers association through their President Max Page said, “Massachusetts residents are ready to join the vast majority of states that have scrapped the use of standardized tests as a graduation requirement and instead use authentic, educator-designed assessments of student skills. The MCAS will still be taken, as is required by federal law, but it will be used for diagnostic purposes, and not as a high-stakes test required for earning a diploma.”

AGAINST: Gov. Maura Healey (D) and Massachusetts Secretary of Education Patrick Tutwiler (Nonpartisan) oppose Question 2. The Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, which also opposes the initiative, said, “Importantly, we know from Brown University research that ‘high school MCAS scores predict long-term success and appear to reflect students’ academic skills,’ not simply socio-economic status or school characteristics …. We can’t eliminate gaps in achievement and equity if we strip ourselves of the tools to measure them. Instead of wasting time fighting for legislation that does away with the graduation standard, a true commitment to equity requires we focus squarely on helping all students meet it.”

Provide for unionizing and collective bargaining for transportation network drivers.

A “yes” vote supports:

• providing for unionizing and collective bargaining for transportation network drivers;
• requiring the state to oversee the negotiations between the parties and approve the negotiated recommendations on wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of work; and
• requiring collective bargaining agreements to be approved by at least a majority of riders who have completed at least 100 trips during the previous quarter.

A “no” vote opposes providing for unionizing and collective bargaining for transportation network drivers.

________________

Question 3 would give transportation network drivers the right to form unions for collective bargaining with transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft. The transportation network companies would be authorized to form multi-company associations to represent them in bargaining with associations of drivers. The initiative would require the state to oversee the negotiations between the parties and approve the negotiated recommendations on wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of work.

The initiative would also create a hearing process for the Massachusetts Employment Relations Board to process unfair work practice charges against transportation network companies. The board would be authorized to award compensation to wronged parties if unfair work practices have been committed. Companies would be authorized to appeal the board’s decision to the state Appeal Court.

The law would authorize a driver organization to be the exclusive bargaining representative for all drivers after it has collected signatures from at least 25% of active drivers. The initiative would define active drivers as drivers who have completed more than the median number of rides in the past six months. The board would determine if the driver organization has collected the required number of signatures. If so, the designated driver organization would have the exclusive right to represent drivers in negotiations with companies and collect voluntary membership dues. Any collective bargaining agreement would have to be approved by most riders who have completed at least 100 trips during the previous quarter and the Secretary of Labor. The agreement would be in effect for the following three years.

FOR:

• Roxana Rivera of SEIU 32BJ: “This is common sense, and voters overwhelmingly agree. It’s past time to grant drivers the basic union rights that workers across Massachusetts have enjoyed for generations, so we can finally end the unacceptable wages and working conditions that Uber and Lyft drivers have been subjected to at the hands of tech companies.” 
• Domingo Castillo, a driver and member of the campaign: “During the pandemic, I was working 12-hour days every single day. At that time, we were making what we deserved, but after the pandemic is when we started to see the pay really decrease, despite that we had been providing a service the community needed. They just started lowering pay, waiting time became longer, and unjust deactivations occurred more frequently. There was no consideration about the sacrifice we made to keep their service running. A union is the only thing that would give us a voice to be able to have some say in the things that really directly affect us.” 

AGAINST: So far, there has been no campaign against this initiative.

Regulate access to psychedelic substances.
A “yes” vote supports this initiative to:

• create a Natural Psychedelic Substances Commission and Advisory Board to regulate the licensing of psychedelic substances and services,
• authorize the personal use of limited amounts of psychedelic substances by individuals 21 years of age or older,
• impose an additional excise tax at a rate of 15% on the sale of psychedelic substances, and
• authorize localities to levy an additional tax of up to 2% on psychedelic substances and regulate the time, place, and manner of the operation of natural psychedelic substance licensees.

A “no” vote opposes this initiative to provide regulated access to certain psychedelic substances and authorize the personal use of limited amounts of psychedelics by individuals 21 years of age or older. “no” vote opposes this initiative to provide regulated access to certain psychedelic substances and authorize the personal use of limited amounts of psychedelics by individuals 21 years of age or older.

_______________

For summaries of the different provisions of Question 4, please check out BALLOTPEDIA.

FOR: Massachusetts for Mental Health Options is leading the campaign supporting the initiative. Emily Oneschuk, Massachusetts for Mental Health Options’ grassroots outreach director and a U.S. Navy veteran: “Plant-based therapeutics are the most effective treatment I have seen for veterans struggling with mental health challenges after service.”

AGAINST: So far, there has been no opposition position filed.

Gradually increase the wage of tipped employees until it meets the state minimum wage in 2029 and still permit tipping in addition to the minimum wage.

A “yes” vote supports gradually increasing the wage of tipped employees until it meets the state minimum wage in 2029 and continues to permit tipping in addition to the minimum wage.

A “no” vote opposes gradually increasing the wage of tipped employees until it meets the state minimum wage in 2029.

________________

Question 5 would gradually increase the minimum wage for tipped employees according to the following schedule:

• 64% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2025;
• 73% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2026;
• 82% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2027;
• 91% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2028; and
• 100% of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2029.

Tipped employees would be paid the state minimum wage in addition to tips received.

As of January 2024, the minimum wage for tipped employees in Massachusetts was $6.75, plus tips, and the minimum wage for non-tipped employees was $15.00.

FOR: One Fair Wage Plus Tips MA is leading the campaign in support of Question 5. “Thousands of tipped workers in Massachusetts are leaving the restaurant industry and are not willing to return without One Fair Wage, and nearly 250 Massachusetts employers are now paying One Fair Wage to recruit staff and seek a level playing field — the time to pass One Fair Wage is now.

AGAINST: The committee to Protect Tips is leading the campaign in opposition to the initiative.

• Steve Clark, president and CEO of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association: “If this ballot question passes, it’s going to impact three piers. It’s going to impact the server themselves, who’s going to make less money. It’s going to impact the restaurant owner, who’s going to have higher costs upwards of $18,000 dollars per tip employee to implement this, and it’s going to have a higher cost for the consumer because there’s going to be higher costs.” 
• Committee to Protect Tips: “EVERY worker in Massachusetts is already guaranteed to earn at least the current minimum wage of $15 including tipped employees. If, after wages and tips, an employee does not earn $15 per hour, the employer must pay the difference. In fact, when Congress codified the tip credit in 1966, the Congressional research service explained that the law does not mean that a tipped worker may earn a subminimum wage; rather the tip credit provisions change the composition of a worker’s earnings.”