Back with new posts from Student Dispatch
Ballot initiatives #1 and #4
Greetings,
Last year, Rachel Slade and I worked with undergraduate students to publish a series of articles about Massachusetts politics. We’re back at it again with nine outstanding student writers. You can check out their bios here.
Over the next few months, we’ll be published about 25 articles. Each week, I’ll email a couple of them to you. Feel free to share them with your friends. We’ll be covering some of the most pressing issues facing the Commonwealth.
For starters, here are two stories about contentious ballot initiatives on the November ballot. MICHAEL WEISKOPF writes about the millionaires tax (Question 1). FLORA MENG writes about undocumented immigrants and drivers licenses (Question 4).
Enjoy!
Eitan Hersh
Massachusetts voters to decide on millionaires’ tax
Proponents say revenue will fund education and transit. Opponents say it will hurt small businesses.
Michael Weiskopf
The impassioned nationwide debate over whether the wealthy should pay more in taxes is coming to Massachusetts in November. Question 1 on the state ballot this year will ask voters whether Bay Staters making more than $1 million a year should pay an extra 4% in income tax, in addition to the 5% flat income tax in effect for all residents.
Proponents of the question emphasize that revenue from the tax would go toward improvements to education, transportation, and infrastructure, but opponents argue that many are overlooking the potential impact on retirees and small business owners, as well as the possibility of millionaire migration.
Advocates’ efforts to bring the question directly to voters were years in the making. RaiseUp Massachusetts, a coalition of unions and progressive advocacy organizations, has been behind a number of successful ballot questions in Massachusetts over the past decade, such as the 2014 campaign for paid sick leave. The organization has been pushing for a millionaires’ tax ballot initiative since 2015.
RaiseUp says that taking the issue directly to voters culminates years of failed discussions with state lawmakers and the business community.
A nearly identical ballot question in 2018 was tossed out by the State Supreme Court which ruled the wording unconstitutional because it mixed two issues—taxes and dedication of revenue—that were not “related or mutually dependent.” However, the SJC’s requirements do not apply to amendments passed by the state legislature, and the question was added to the 2022 ballot after it overwhelmingly passed both chambers as a constitutional amendment in June 2021.
State Senator Jason Lewis (D) and State Representative Jim O’Day (D) introduced the amendment, which proponents call the “Fair Share Amendment,” in their respective chambers. O’Day explained that, as currently written, much of the amendment’s revenue from the increased tax base would go toward improving education, transportation, and infrastructure. The tax is estimated to raise anywhere between $1.3 billion to $2.7 billion per year.
“The Fair Share Amendment, which will be on the Massachusetts ballot as Question 1, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to sustainably improve our transportation and public education systems,” O’Day said in a written statement. “Fair Share is a win-win for Massachusetts, and I encourage everyone to vote yes on Question 1.”
Both supporters and opponents of Question 1 have assembled sizable coalitions to campaign for or against the referendum. Organizations supporting the question include prominent advocacy groups such as the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) and the Massachusetts chapter of the Service Employees International Union (1199SEIU). Organizations in opposition include economic think tanks such as the Pioneer Institute, as well as the influential Boston Chamber of Commerce.
Supporters Hope for Improvements to Education, Infrastructure
Proponents of Question 1 have emphasized the amendment’s provisions for directing the additional tax revenue to education, infrastructure, and transportation improvements. Andrew Farnitano, a spokesperson for the Yes on 1 campaign, argued that millionaires should front more of the cost for these improvements.
“[Question 1 would] make our tax system fairer,” Farnitano said in an interview. “We're going to compete on… having a stronger economy that works for people of all incomes, not just those at the very top.”
More specialized advocacy groups such as the MTA have also joined the Fair Share Amendment campaign. MTA President Max Page explained how he believes revenue raised from the tax would help teachers and students in Massachusetts.
“The 115,000 members of the Massachusetts Teachers Association are all in on supporting Question 1 because we know it will make a real difference for our students every single year from now on,” Page said in a written statement. “With the Fair Share Amendment, we can overcome the educator shortages in our schools. We can give students the one-to-one support they need to get back on track after the pandemic. We can improve opportunities for vocational education. And we can make our public colleges affordable so that students can graduate without debt…”
Darrin Howell, political director of 1199SEIU, argued that service employees would also benefit from the revenue raised by the tax. Specifically, he said that investments in childcare would make the most significant impact.
“We recognize the value of service employees, especially during our pandemic time, and what contribution they provide to the larger society,” Howell said in an interview. “If folks had to be on the front line during the pandemic, children… had to be at home. Making sure that quality education was still being provided is just one example of [how], if there had been early childcare investments, then the service workers wouldn’t have had to decide between going to work or staying at home and caring for the child.”
Opponents Warn of Impact on Small Businesses, Net Revenue Loss
Opponents of Question 1 have asserted that small business owners would be harmed by a millionaires’ tax. Dan Cence, spokesperson for the Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike Amendment, explained that small businesses could feel the consequences of the tax in ways that proponents of the referendum might overlook.
“Many small businesses are structured to report business revenue as personal income, even though much of it is reinvested back into their staff and company resources,” Cence wrote in an email. “Many of these small businesses are family-owned and operate on razor thin margins. Under this amendment, their taxes would nearly double, severely hindering businesses’ ability to remain viable in a competitive market.”
The Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based economic policy think tank, has also strongly opposed Question 1. Charlie Chieppo, a senior fellow at the Pioneer Institute, argued that small business owners and retirees could be hurt by the tax because it also applies to one-time earnings, also known as nest eggs. He cited a study conducted by Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis, which found that nearly half of Massachusetts residents who have made over $1 million in one year do so only once in their lives.
“[Small businesses are] the ones who really get hurt by this because, if you look at the numbers over a 10 year period, [out of] people in Massachusetts who earn $1 million or more a year, 46% of those people earn $1 million only once,” Chieppo said in an interview.
Another popular argument among opponents of Question 1 is that the additional tax could be so onerous that millionaires—and perhaps even billionaires—would move to a different state. Many opponents of the amendment fear that the relocation of these individuals to other states could result in a net tax revenue loss for Massachusetts. Chieppo expressed these concerns as well.
“In the ‘80s, Massachusetts famously got the ‘Taxachussetts’ nickname, and Massachusetts has, for the last 30 years, done a really good job of moderating that… and we’ve seen huge growth as a result,” Chieppo said. “Yet, even after that, while we do gain residents from high-tax states… we still lose far more to places like Florida and New Hampshire. And those states are… cutting taxes in order to make places more conducive for people to move.”
The “Yes” Campaign Responds to Criticism
Supporters of Question 1 have pushed back against criticism that the amendment would harm small business owners. O’Day asserted that the tax would apply only to a very small percentage of one-time earnings above $1 million.
“The opposition is circulating a lot of disinformation about Fair Share,” O’Day said. “First, it is a tax on personal income above $1 million only; it is not a tax on small businesses. Less than 3% of small businesses owners in Massachusetts have taxable personal income over $1 million. Second, when a property is sold in Massachusetts only the gain in value, not the sale price, is subject to income tax. Only 2% of homes sold in the state produce a gain of more than $1 million for the seller and would be subject to Fair Share.”
Likewise, Farnitano argued that the millionaires’ tax would help—not harm—small business owners.
“Unfortunately, an opposition campaign that is funded by billionaires, some of the wealthiest people in Massachusetts, is lying and trying to confuse voters and small businesses about question one.” Farnitano said. “This question is not a tax on businesses. It's a tax on personal income… Unless you're taking more than $1 million out from the business and reporting it on your personal income taxes, you wouldn't pay a penny more.”
Pushing back against the fears of millionaire migration, Farnitano asserted that the concerns are unfounded.
“That question has really been extensively studied, and there's no evidence that millionaires change where they live in response to changes in state tax policy,” he said. “Some of the states that have the highest tax rates on income over a million dollars, like California and New York, are also the places with the most millionaire, million-dollar income households, because those are places that have invested in public services that make them a great place to live and work and start a business and raise a family.”
However, the Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike Amendment once again pointed to the Tufts study, which warned of significant revenue loss if enough millionaires decide to leave the state.
“If Question 1 were to pass, individuals and businesses will leave Massachusetts, bringing important jobs with them,” Cence said. “According to The Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis’ report, Massachusetts risks losing around 500 families if Question 1 passes, which would reduce expected tax revenue by about 5 percent and cost the state roughly $100M in 2023.”
Up to the Voters
With the two sides of the debate unable to agree on even basic data, the issue will be brought directly to Massachusetts voters in November. Polls have shown that voters overwhelmingly support the ballot measure, but the final results may prove to be closer than expected; when faced with complex policy issues, voters are often biased toward the status quo. Nevertheless, it will be in Massachusetts voters’ hands to decide once and for all the fate of the Fair Share Amendment.
Divide, Distract, and Disapprove: Partisan Debates Mask Urgency of Massachusetts’ Standard Driver’s License Bill
Flora Meng
As MA voters flip through their red Massachusetts Information for Voters booklet these coming weeks, they’ll find themselves missing a quarter of the ballot. The 30-page ballot question guide contains everything one needs to know about election security and how to be a poll worker, but not a word on arguably the most contentious topic on the ballot this November: Question 4.
The reason? The final wording of Question 4 was submitted after the booklet’s print deadline, and it’s taken a long time to hammer out that language.
This referendum seeks to repeal the recently enacted Work and Family Mobility Act, also known as the driver’s license bill. The law grants all qualified state residents the right to apply for a standard Massachusetts driver’s license, regardless of immigrant status.
Although the license bill passed with sweeping approval in the state House and Senate, opponents of Question 4 want voters to reconsider what it means to place driver’s licenses in the hands of undocumented immigrants.
The Illusion of Disapproval
When Massachusetts state legislatures passed the universal driver’s license they joined 18 other states, including New Mexico and Rhode Island, in allowing anyone who is unable to establish legal presence in the U.S. to receive a standard driver’s license with proof of residency or proof of identity. The hope was that providing a legal pathway to driving a car would bolster public safety and help undocumented immigrants find work and care for their children.
The law also had broad support from law enforcement. According to Elizabeth Sweet, executive director at Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA), 42 police chiefs in the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs of Police Association endorsed the bill while sheriffs and district attorneys from across Massachusetts have also pledged their support.
Within a couple months of the bill’s passing, voter support has only grown. In a July poll conducted by Suffolk University and The Boston Globe, 58 percent of registered voters supported preserving the driver’s license bill while 34 favored repealing the law. “Once you have a law enacted, there is a segment of the population that says, ‘I don’t want to change anything, I don’t want to repeal it,’” says David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
Republicans push back against the current law
Backed by Fair and Secure Massachusetts, opponents of the current licensing law argue that it will enable voter fraud and unjustly reward undocumented immigrants with a driver’s license. Governor Baker made the first point throughout his dissent and subsequent veto of the law, which was later overturned. “My major concern all along is that we have made the issuance of a driver’s license a vehicle through which people get registered to vote,” Baker said to the press last May. “If it passes, we will have huge numbers of provisional votes which will then make it harder for people to figure out who actually won elections.”
In a podcast, Northeastern professor and legal analyst Daniel Medwed refuted this claim, explaining that in Massachusetts, state law mandates that the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) automatically registers eligible drivers to vote, but a standard driver’s license can only allow its holder to drive and buy insurance. For these reasons, he said, “[These criticisms] don't strike me as legitimate.”
But some Republicans worry that the RMV will not be able to properly vet foreign documents for identity purposes. Rep. Paul Frost (R-Worcester) says, “Our RMV employees…do not have the experience to know if something from Ireland or Mexico or France is authentic or not.”
The RMV already verifies foreign documents for green card holders, says Senate President Karen Spilka: “The RMV has figured out a way to tell their status and give them a driver’s license and there’s language also for the secretary of state to clarify, to make regulations to make sure that it’s implemented in the way that it is intended.”
Perhaps the most divisive argument against the driver’s license bill is the notion that the state should not reward immigrants without legal status the right to drive. “I do not think that we should be rewarding people for being in the country illegally,” said Maureen Maloney, one of the sponsors of Fair and Secure Massachusetts.
Proponents counter that driving with a driver’s license assures everyone adheres to the same safety standards because the law would require that all drivers, regardless of immigration status, take a driving test and enroll in auto insurance.
Statistics support the safety argument. States that have implemented driver’s license laws with similar requirements, including California and Connecticut have seen up to a 10-percent decrease in hit and run cases. In Utah and New Mexico, uninsured driving rates have dropped 80- and 60-percent, respectively.
The Road Ahead
Secretary of State William Galvin, who oversees election integrity in the Commonwealth, has called election fraud claims related to the bill a “red herring” and expressed confidence that his office is well positioned to ensure that people don't illegally register to vote. “We can solve any concern there is about this,” Galvin said. “[Governor Baker’s] concerns are baseless. We have some proposals that would address them, even as baseless as they are.”
“Unfortunately, the allegation that opponents of this bill have made around voting issues is quite distracting,” Sweet adds. “The reality is, [the driver’s license law] will not allow non-citizens to vote or register non-citizens to vote. Right now, green card holders and lawful permanent residents have the ability to receive a driver's license, and yet they are not eligible to vote. And we've already managed that system very effectively.”
Issuing drivers licenses may also ease the labor shortage. Sweet pointed out that 80-percent of residents in the state currently rely on personal vehicles to get to work and there are nearly 150,000 immigrants of prime working age who are here without status. President Spilka echoed these ideas in a written statement. “Everyone deserves the ability to get to school and work safely, care for their families and participate in their communities without fear,” she wrote in an email. “This law is popular because it makes our roads safer and our economy stronger.”
Indeed, Massachusetts benefits from the influx of legal drivers. The new law is projected to bring in an additional $5 million in taxes, and $6 million in additional fees, inspections and other services within the first three years. As more drivers would pay into the insurance pool, individual drivers across the state are also expected to face less of a financial burden.
As of October, funding for the campaign favoring a ‘Yes’ vote on Question 4 has taken a striking lead with $1.2 million in donations, out-raising its opposition by more than nine-fold.