Welcome to Sara Lindberg, the newest member of Leading Ladies’ Executive Team. Sarah is always looking for fun and educational events to add to the community calendar! She graduated from UVM in 2024 with a degree in civil engineering and a minor in community development. She has always been excited about the positive impact that infrastructure can have on local communities. She has been involved in environmental groups in college and has volunteered with Green Beverly. Sarah first heard about the Leading Ladies from the Beverly Artsfest and then signed up for the email list. The newsletters that spoke of equity, sustainability, and action led her to join Leading Ladies to do her part in advocacy.
Dear Leading Ladies,
Over the past several years, we at Leading Ladies have made a point of remaining nonpartisan when it comes to political candidates. Not once have we endorsed a particular candidate. That does not mean, however, that we have not taken a stand on particular issues. We consider them fair game. Too often, ballot questions that can affect our lives and the lives of our families and friends are explained poorly, leaving voters confused. As a result, many people may avoid voting on these questions or vote without fully understanding the pros and cons.
Our goal is to offer a clear explanation of the Massachusetts ballot questions as well as our opinion about how to vote on each one. Information was culled from the League of Women Voters, WBUR, TuftsNow, Ballotpedia, and New England Public Media to the Endicott Center for Civic Participation before making our decisions about which questions to endorse.
Question #1
Question #1, if passed, would expand the state’s public records law (the equivalent to the federal freedom of information act) so that more records specifically from the governor’s office would be accessible to the public. Supporters applaud the effort at more transparency; some detractors think it doesn’t go far enough while others have some constitutional questions. We think it’s a step in the right direction. Vote YES on Question #1.
Question #2
Question #2 concerns the rights of attorneys and staff of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to unionize and, thus, collectively bargain for their salaries and work conditions. These are the public defenders who represent low income men and women on trial who can not afford to hire lawyers on their own. Their salaries are notoriously paltry, and when lawyers leave for greener pastures, defendants may be left in the hands of inexperienced attorneys. All other state employees are allowed to bargain collectively. Opponents say voting yes costs too much. Vote YES on #2. It’s right for the public defenders and it’s right for the defendants.
Question #3
Question #3 would change our system of primary elections, replacing our two-party system with a single, all-candidate primary for state offices. Three states—California, Washington, and Nebraska—already have adopted this all-party primary system for state elections for positions such as governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, district attorney, US senator and representative, state senator and representative and many more. All registered voters would participate in the same primary. The top two winners would move on to the general election, whatever their party. The chance to get more people out to vote in a trimmed-down system sounds appealing. So does the opportunity for voters to choose among candidates and not just between parties. Why, then do Sen. Ed Markey and US Rep. Ayanna Presley oppose Question #3? They argue that the proposed system can actually limit voter choice, especially among third-party or independent candidates; that it can increase expenses by adding another layer of campaigns; and that the influence of large donors and major equity would be expanded. In fact, Randy Peeler of Berkshire Partners, Andrew Balson of Cover Hill Partners, and Joshua Bekenstein of Bain Capital, have collectively contributed $1,300,000 in support of Question #3. Those in opposition have donated less than $200,000, from the union SEIU1099 and the MA Democratic State Committee. Vote NO on Question #3.
Question #4
Question #4 would expand voter registration deadlines up to and including Election Day. Currently, people must register or update their registration 10 days in advance. Although Question 4 would make registration easier, the overall impact would probably be small since most likely voters in Massachusetts get automatically registered when they interact with the RMV or other state agencies. In other words, Question #4 will not solve our voter suppression problems, but every little bit helps. Vote YES on #4.
Question #5
Question #5 proposes to change the formula the state uses to compute the amount it can retain and spend each year from tax revenue. Question 5 calls for refunds to be determined by wage growth and the previous year’s tax revenue, rather than by the formula in place now. As a result, there would be more refunds to taxpayers and less money in the state budget for other needed purposes. The estimate is that taxpayers would receive an average $200-250 a year. Supporters of Question #5 believe taxpayers need the money in their pocket right now to meet basic expenses. Opponents believe that $200-250 a year would not make a meaningful difference in most peoples’ lives, and further, that the money it would take to deliver those dividends could be spent far more effectively collectively on health, education, and social services, for example. Vote NO on Question #5.
Question #6
Question #6 at first seems like a no-brainer: designate tax money for the environment. Turns out it’s a little more complicated. While Massachusetts has a goal of protecting 30% of its land and waters by 2030 to reduce habitat loss and threats to biodiversity, achieving that goal will be difficult without additional funds. It’s a double-edged problem. On the one hand, the measure can’t mandate that earmarked dollars actually get spent on recreation or conservation. On the other hand, if the funds are used for those purposes, opponents say it will be at the expense of more needy areas, such as Medicaid and food assistance. We recommend voting YES on Question #6 to show support of a sustainable environment, with an understanding that this question is an imperfect attempt at solving a complicated problem.
Question #7
If passed, Question #7 would allow houses to be built throughout the state on plots measuring at least 5,000 square feet, much smaller than those allowed in some towns and cities. Proposed as a way to deal with the high cost of housing and the current lack of sufficient housing, the new ruling would give the power to the state to determine minimum lot sizes. Vote YES to make housing and homeowning more affordable to more of our residents.
Question #8
Question #8 aims to turn back the clock and criminalize marijuana again. The 2016 law that allowed retail sale and home cultivation would be overturned. Adults over 21 would still be allowed to possess one ounce of marijuana. All retail stores would be closed. Young adults found with marijuana would have to attend a drug awareness program. Current retail dispensaries would be able to apply for licenses to sell marijuana for medical use, but most would go out of business. The fear among many is that without a regulated system, customers are “going to have to buy products that are not tested, not age-gated, and may be laced with other things,” as credibly explained by one opponent of Question #8 quoted on WBUR. Vote NO on Question #8.
Question #9
In 2024, Governor Maura Healey signed a new firearms law, establishing the state’s first regulations on untraceable “ghost guns“ built from kits or with 3D printers; expanded the definitions of assault-style firearms; added regulations on products that can make semiautomatic firearms work like automatics; and mandated that every Massachusetts gun owner register all their firearms with the state in an online portal. It also banned guns from polling places, made it a crime for people to carry weapons inside government buildings, and required new material for firearm safety courses for anyone applying for a gun permit. Ballot Question #9 is a referendum that asks voters whether to keep or scrap the 2024 gun law. Vote YES on Question #9 to keep the 2024 gun law in place.
We hope our assessments are helpful. We will still love you all if you disagree. Please let us know of any arguments against our decisions. What we care most about is that we all are thinking about what impacts our lives and voting to make our dreams come true!
Therese (she/her/hers)
Judy (she/her/hers)
Didi (she/her/hers)
Sarah Lindberg (she/her/hers)
Leading Ladies Executive Team
Leadingladiesvote.org
ladies@leadingladiesvote.org