Massachusetts voters help decide the presidential race next Tuesday, Nov. 8, but they will also weigh in on four ballot questions with significant implications for state educational policy and societal outlooks on drug use.
Voters have been deluged with advertisements for and against Question 2, the charter school expansion question, and Question 4, legalization and regulation of marijuana. Both sides in debates over the two questions have staked out contrasting positions and invited voters to choose sides.
Adding up to 12 new charter schools annually is a proposal supported by Gov. Baker, and the Swampscott resident has aligned his public popularity with charter expansion supporters. They argue thousands of Massachusetts children are stuck on charter school waiting lists and deserve a chance to pursue an education chosen for them by their parents.
Charter opponents claim charter schools pull tax dollars away from public schools while being allowed to pick and choose the students they want to enroll. Charters are popular in Lynn where Knowledge Is Power Program built the first large school in more than 15 years when it erected its KIPP Academy on top of the Highlands.
Voters should consider the long-term implications of a year-to-year charter school expansion and ask if an expansion will set the stage for two distinct elementary and secondary school systems in Massachusetts.
Long-term thinking must also apply to Question 4. Proponents want to equate marijuana to alcohol and talk about how it will be regulated and confined to users over 21 years old. Other advocates point to the drug’s decriminalization and call legalization the logical next step.
These arguments sound rational but opponents ask serious questions about legalization. They point to increased crime and accident statistics in states where pot is legal. They warn voters against condoning marijuana use at a time when Massachusetts and states across the country are fighting an opioid epidemic that, statistically speaking, is worsening.
Proponents say legalization unlocks an untapped revenue source for Massachusetts communities while opponents point to the cost of regulation and enforcement.
One troubling question regarding legalization centers on the state’s youngest residents. Young people have been told for years to stay clear of drugs and follow the examples of mentors who do not drink or drug. Does legalization erode that message and with what implications?
Ballot Question 1 is the one with direct implications for Revere. Eugene McCain, the chief proponent of expanded slot-machine gambling, has set up shop in Revere in hopes of building a local slots parlor.
Revere voters rejected a local slots ballot question last month but McCain can accurately note that roughly one in six voters bothered to vote. Expansion proponents claim increased gambling will pour millions of dollars into town and city treasuries. But Plainridge Park Casino, the state’s only slot parlor, opened in 2015 and it may be too early to assess the positive and negative aspects of its operation.
Without the benefit of that analysis, voters may have to roll the dice to decide if more dollars from slots makes sense in Massachusetts.
Question 3 has been all but crowded off the ballot by its big brothers. A “yes” vote prohibits pigs, calves and hens from being confined in space preventing them from standing and extending their limbs.
It’s safe to say everyone in Massachusetts is going to want to stand up and stretch after this election ends.