Tomorrow, Massachusetts state voters will cast their ballots not only for a presidential candidate and a senatorial candidate, but for a series of significant referendum questions as well. Of the eight proposals ranging in scope from charity tax reductions to motor vehicle tolls, we find Questions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 to be the most consequential.
Voting Rights for Prisoners
We unequivocally oppose Question 2, a constitutional amendment proposal that would limit the voting rights of all incarcerated felons in the state of Massachusetts. Not only does the Massachusetts State Constitution explicitly state that incarcerated citizens retain their voting rights, but this very issue was also affirmed by the state's Supreme Judicial Court in 1977. Very few prisoners exercise their voting rights under the current system and it would be difficult to prove that incarcerated citizens' voting trends have influenced any election, be it in a positive or a negative direction. At its core, this question aims to dismantle the foundation of Massachusetts' democracy and should be adamantly opposed and voted down.
Dog Racing
Question 3 addresses the issue of greyhound dog racing in Massachusetts, a disgraceful fixture in the state for the past 65 years. We urge voters to vote yes on this proposal, which would add Massachusetts to a list of 34 states that have already banned such cruelty toward animals. The national greyhound racing industry admits to killing thousands of dogs each year. While still alive, these dogs are kept in cages for 22 hours of each day. When the dogs stop turning a profit, their lives abruptly end. Although this worthy proposal would require that the state's two greyhound racing tracks close by the June 1, 2000, creating complicated issues of unemployment, it would also stop Massachusetts from relying on a morally questionable industry for tax dollars--an industry that not only depends upon inhumane treatment toward animals, but that has declined in revenues by nearly 70 percent just in the last decade.
Reduction of State Income Tax
If passed, the fourth of the Massachusetts questions would gradually reduce the state personal income tax in the next three years down to 5 percent. We oppose this question based on its potential threat to the future of Massachusetts residents and especially its families. A vote against this resolution will assist the state in their efforts to improve public schools by decreasing class size and expanding early childhood education, open up health care accessibility for state residents and help build and stabilize Massachusetts' economy. Although the state has enjoyed a surplus in recent years, this money should be spent responsibly rather then be used to endorse a severe personal income tax cut for the wealthy.
Health Care Reform
Question 5 on the Massachusetts ballot is by far the most complex of the proposals. If passed, it would create a Health Care Council that would review and recommend health care system legislation to ensure comprehensive and high quality health care coverage for all Massachusetts residents. Although we support the spirit of this proposed law along the vein of universal health care, we are wary about its logistical implications and fear that the result may render a state health care system worse off than the one that exists today. We support the pretense of the proposal, especially that the law would require health insurance carriers to provide certain rights to their patients and health care professionals. Health care in Massachusetts is in desperate need of reform; too many people are without any type of health insurance and the prices for medical treatment have spiraled out of control. We acknowledge this bold proposal as an attempt to take action to remedy this grave situation. At the same time, independent studies performed by Brandeis University and the Harvard School of Public Health have shown that the Question 5 proposal would result in eliminated protections designed to uphold standards of health care in the state, create two new government bureaucracies that have no spending caps and increase the overall cost of health care coverage for employers and consumers significantly. Massachusetts should vote down Question 5 and instead, work with these independent research institutions to develop a universal health care plan that not only addresses the Massachusetts health care crisis, but solves it in a way that is economically sound as well.
Drug Money For Drug Treatment
We support Question 8, which would change the laws that govern drug-dependency treatment and create a Drug Treatment Trust Fund. This fund would include fines paid under the state's criminal drug laws, the money used in connection with drug crimes and the proceeds from property sold because of connections to drug-related criminal activity. Question 8 represents a smart and efficient drug strategy that provides cost-supervised treatment for drug offenders rather than time in prison, which has proven to be a less effective form of rehabilitation for low-level drug offenders. This proposal also protects drug-offenders from having their rights suspended or their property taken away from them before their conviction. The strategy holds authorities accountable for proving criminal activity and also directs needed desperately money into rehabilitation drug treatment.
There is a dangerous misconception, held among disaffected voters, that political issues are too distant from everyday life. On the contrary, these Massachusetts Ballot Questions will effect an immediate and direct impact to the community in which we live. At the very least, we urge the people of this state to head the polls and cast an educated vote. Only then can we consider this exercise in democratic self-governance a success.
