Sheela Clary

Early voting begins on October 22 this year and will include two weekends. In addition to the slate of elected officials to be selected, including Governor, Attorney General and State Representatives, there are four binding ballot measures. In September you and I should have received a red pamphlet in the mail describing three of these.

Ballot question #1 has its own lawn signs, as well as an origin story from the Gilded Age. The Fair Share Amendment, or more commonly called the “Millionaire Tax,” would raise the income tax on income above one million dollars per year by four percent, with the money raised put toward education and transportation. (This applies to all income. Not only wages, but investments as well.)

According to Chuck Collins, great-grandson of Oscar Mayer and co-founder of the Patriotic Millionaires, the Fair Share Amendment is an effort to rectify a mistake from 1915. That year, according to Collins, “The ultra-wealthy denizens of Massachusetts basically were trying to prevent a graduated rate system where wealthy people would pay higher rates, which is the system in all the states that have an income tax.” We’ve had a flat tax rate of five percent since then, which means that, in an echo of Warren Buffett’s famous comparison between himself and his secretary, a housekeeper earning $45,000 per year pays the same rate as a CEO earning two million.

It’s not the first go-around for the millionaire tax. Collins was field director for eastern Massachusetts in 1994 for an ill-fated effort to adopt a similar measure. “We tried to change the state constitution and it was beaten two to one. It’s always because of the opposition at the very end, and they don’t have any real like educational program or field program. They just raise a bunch of money from rich people and buy TV ads trying to scare everybody.”

More recently, in 2018, the Massachusetts Supreme Court threw out a nearly identical proposal to the one now on the table, on a technicality. The judge in that case agreed that voters were being asked to vote on multiple measures within one question.

Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier, a big champion of the measure, has been doing a fair bit of clarifying and explaining with constituents. “This takes a little bit of education, a couple of sentences anyway. When I say your first million dollars that you earn will get no additional tax, they’re like, ‘Oh, okay, that’s never gonna be me. I’m good with that.’”

Question 1 was put forward by Raise Up Mass, which is composed of union members and folks from various community and faith-based organizations. “It’s a pretty interesting group that’s coming together to say, ‘What are our common goals here?’” says Farley-Bouvier.

Erica Payne, founder and President of the Patriotic Millionaires is, unsurprisingly, also one hundred percent behind the Fair Share Amendment. “This is right in our wheelhouse. Listen, anybody making over a million dollars in America right now needs to put some more money on the table. It is the easiest, fastest, most efficient way to drive investment into the core services that Massachusetts delivers to its citizens. This to me is an absolute no brainer tax.”

The organization putting the most effort into the “No on One” movement is the Massachusetts-based Pioneer Institute, whose main argument is that high net worth individuals and businesses will choose to leave the state rather than pay the higher tax rate, and the state as a whole will lose out on good business opportunities.

To this argument, responds Collins, “There’s always some high-profile person that might have already decided they’re going to move to Florida, so they’re going to flame out and tell everyone, ‘Oh, I’m moving because of Taxichusetts.’ But the reality is, people like living in Massachusetts because, if you travel the country, you see we have better infrastructure, better schools, better public health. We get something for our tax dollars.”

In an even-keeled report, Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis predicted that the new tax would bring in about $1.3 billion new dollars. What was less clear, they found, was what will be the net impact. Since there’s been no details provided, apart from the enormously broad categories of education and transportation as to where the funds will be spent, there’s no way to tell if the state “durably increases the size of transportation and education investments or instead uses this money to support already-planned spending.”

Question 2 would appear to be less controversial, at least among non-dentists. The Regulation of Dental Insurance would, if passed, “regulate dental insurance rates, including by requiring companies to spend at least 83% of premiums on member dental expenses and quality improvements instead of administrative expenses…”

Dr. Neha Das, of Berkshire Pediatric Dentistry, explained that while there is an 88% minimum in the rest of the medical field, “There is no such minimum in dental care. It’s high time for it. There’s no way of tracking where that money is being spent, and question 2 requires that companies report where they are spending money. It won’t change my life,” she added, “but it would be really nice for my patients.””

The group behind the question is the Committee on Dental Insurance Quality, which includes the American Dental Association and many other dentists’ groups. Leading the charge against the measure is the Committee to Protect Access to Quality Dental Care, made up of insurance companies, who claim that patients will suffer with higher premiums in the future if the measure passes. To that, Dr. Das pointed out that question two “specifically prevents dental insurance premium increases above the consumer price index without approval by the state.”

Question 3 is titled: “Expanded Availability of Licenses for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages,” and it would “increase the statewide limits on the combined number of licenses for one retailer from 9 to 12 in 2023, to 15 in 2027, and to 18 in 2031. A yes vote would support this increase. A no vote would make no change to existing law.”

For insider info on this one, I reached out to my best local source for all things alcohol-related: Ed Domaney, of Domaney’s Liquors and Fine Wines. Did he have any thoughts on question 3? He did. He emailed back a long and conflicted response, excerpted below.

“One part of me likes it because it will limit liquor licenses for big corporations who want to put the smaller stores out of business … But it also allows unlimited beer and wine licenses for any corporation such as the Cumberland farms …. I go back to all the people that had to pay for their licenses like us back in the 70s and we paid a lot …We’ve worked so hard over the years and to have this situation is just unfair … Our electric bill … Cost of wages … Cost of taxes, liability insurance etc. has skyrocketed … in my opinion it’s not even worth being in business as this continues … So we are in a tough situation.”

He added that the measure will probably be great for chains like Wegmans, and for outlets in larger population centers. But as for his small business in a small town, “… I always thought my association [Massachusetts Package Stores Association] had my back but I totally am not sure now … Is definitely a double edge sword.”

Question 4 on the ballot was so late to the game it was not filed in time to make it into the red pamphlet. It’s gearing up to be more controversial than the millionaire tax.

Eligibility for Drivers Licenses wouldn’t permit undocumented people to apply for a state driver’s license, because that law has already passed. It passed last June, over Governor Baker’s veto. In other words, under current law, which will go into effect next summer if it’s not overturned in November, Massachusetts will join sixteen other states in making undocumented residents eligible for Drivers Licenses. To clarify further, if you vote YES on 4, you are voting to retain this new law. If you vote NO, you are voting to overturn the new law, and to prevent undocumented residents from obtaining drivers licenses. Rep. Farley-Bouvier is also enthusiastically supporting yes on four, because, she says, “I want all drivers to be trained, licensed and insured despite their immigration status.” It is, in her view, a question of public safety.

Volunteers in Medicine, which serves the uninsured with medical, dental care, and mental health care, is also advocating for yes on four, says Executive Director Ilana Steinhauer, for reasons of equity. “When we are thinking about equity in our community, access to transportation is extremely important for getting to health appointments and jobs, taking care of your family. There is no reason for people not to have access to driver’s licenses. The reason that they are trying to repeal it is that they’re saying that it can be used to vote, which is completely a lie.”

“They” are Fair and Secure MA, which is advocating for NO on Four, with their primary objection being the question of eligibility to vote. (For a debate on the merits of question four, click here.)

To assess the legitimacy of that concern, Steinhauer pointed me to a WGBH story in which Daniel Medwed, a legal analyst, calls Republican’s fears of illegal voting “overblown” and quotes Secretary of State Galvin calling them a “red herring.”

Under current rules to register to vote you must assert that you are an American citizen, but you are not required to show proof of citizenship, only to provide either a driver’s license or social security number. But Rep. Farley-Bouvier pointed out that other non-citizens, such as those with green cards and other visas or immigration statuses, have been permitted to obtain drivers licenses all along, and have still been prevented from registering to vote.

No doubt there will be more said and written about this one, and the other three questions, in coming weeks.

Phew. Thank goodness there are only four questions. How much more exhausted would I be if all the issues put forward for inclusion on the 2022 ballot had made the cut? I would have had to explain to you the pros and cons, for example, of legalizing fireworks. I’d have had to do a deep dive on Uber, to decide whether or not to establish a gig worker category. Who knows what tiresome culture war nastiness might have arisen related to adding retired and current first responders to the list of identities protected under hate crimes law.

But man, I do really wish I could have weighed in on Bring Back Happy Hour.

‍