Question 1: Should the Auditor Oversee the Legislature
Resolution: The Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts (ULMA) supports Question 1, which seeks to expand the state auditor’s powers to investigate non-core activities of the state legislature. However, we caution voters that such an expansion must be carefully monitored to avoid politicizing the auditor’s role, which should remain neutral and independent of party influence.
Rationale: As proponents of transparency and accountability within government, we believe that expanding the auditor’s oversight to include non-core activities of the legislature—such as cybersecurity, employee training compliance, and purchasing practices—can serve as a valuable check on inefficiencies and potential abuses. This aligns with our principle of reducing corruption and ensuring that government actions, regardless of the branch, are subject to appropriate scrutiny.
At the same time, we recognize the risk of politicizing the office of the auditor. A politicized auditor, swayed by party interests, could use investigations to influence legislative behavior in ways that undermine the intended neutrality of the role. Therefore, while we support the intent behind Question 1, we urge caution and call for safeguards that preserve the auditor’s independence to prevent partisan exploitation of this expanded authority.
Comment: We support expanding the auditor’s powers to investigate non-core legislative activities as a step toward greater transparency and accountability. However, we also caution voters that this expansion must not lead to the politicization of the auditor’s role. To maintain trust in the auditor’s office, it must remain an impartial institution that serves the public interest, free from partisan agendas.
Question 2: Eliminating the MCAS Graduation Requirement
Resolution: ULMA supports Question 2, which seeks to eliminate the MCAS as a graduation requirement, empowering local school districts to set their own standards. However, we caution voters that this decentralization must be accompanied by safeguards to maintain educational standards, given that taxpayers fund the education system and deserve a level of oversight to ensure quality outcomes.
Rationale: Libertarians value the principles of decentralization and local control over education. By allowing individual school districts to set their own graduation requirements, Question 2 promotes flexibility and empowers communities to tailor education to meet the specific needs of their students, including those with cognitive disabilities and English language learners. This aligns with our belief in reducing state overreach and fostering innovation in education.
However, because the education system is funded by taxpayers, there is a responsibility to ensure that these funds are used effectively to maintain high educational standards. The removal of a common graduation standard across the state could lead to significant variations in educational quality, potentially leading to a misuse of taxpayer resources. To prevent this, it is crucial that local control is balanced with appropriate oversight mechanisms to ensure that all districts meet minimum educational standards. This oversight will fall on the taxpayers to hold the Executive Office of Education responsible.
We also recognize the potential for legislative action to either support or hinder the implementation of this ballot measure. It is essential that any changes maintain a balance between local autonomy, the preservation of high educational standards, and the accountability owed to taxpayers.
Comment: Our support for Question 2 reflects our commitment to decentralizing education and empowering local communities. However, we urge voters to consider the potential risks associated with this shift and to advocate for safeguards that will ensure educational standards are not compromised. Given that taxpayers fund the education system, it is critical to provide a level of oversight to ensure that education remains both effective and efficient, serving all students well.
Question 3: A Union for Rideshare Drivers
Resolution: ULMA recognizes the importance of improving working conditions for rideshare drivers and supports the principle of voluntary association. However, we oppose Question 3, which seeks to create a sector-based bargaining system for rideshare drivers, due to concerns over increased regulation, potential legal challenges, and the risk of undermining market efficiency and consumer choice.
Rationale: Libertarian principles emphasize the importance of voluntary contracts, free markets, and minimal government intervention. While improving working conditions for rideshare drivers is a noble goal, Question 3 proposes a complex regulatory framework that could lead to significant unintended consequences. The introduction of sector-based bargaining, a largely untested approach in the United States, risks increasing the cost of rideshare services, limiting access, and potentially harming both consumers and the broader gig economy.
Moreover, the likelihood of protracted legal battles could stall the implementation of any potential benefits for drivers, leaving them in a state of uncertainty. The creation of a union with minimal driver support and the potential exclusion of some drivers from the bargaining process also raises concerns about the legitimacy and fairness of the proposed system.
Given that the rideshare industry is already subject to dynamic changes, including the advent of self-driving technology, the imposition of a rigid, state-controlled bargaining system may hinder innovation and flexibility—key components of a thriving gig economy.
While we support the rights of workers to seek better conditions overall, we believe this should be achieved through voluntary means that do not rely on heavy-handed government intervention or threaten to distort the market.
Comment: We oppose Question 3 because it introduces a complex and potentially disruptive regulatory framework that could harm both drivers and consumers. While we acknowledge the need to improve working conditions for rideshare drivers, we advocate for solutions that align with free-market principles and voluntary association, without resorting to increased state control or risking the viability of the rideshare industry.
Question 4: Legalizing/Regulating Psychedelic Drugs
Resolution: ULMA opposes Question 4, which seeks to legalize and regulate the use of naturally occurring psychedelics through the establishment of a new, unelected regulatory agency. We believe this measure represents a significant overreach of government power, poses serious economic risks, and threatens personal liberty and innovation.
Rationale: Libertarian principles emphasize minimal government intervention, the protection of personal freedoms, and the promotion of individual responsibility. While the legalization of psychedelic substances could align with personal freedom, the framework proposed by Question 4 introduces a range of concerns that far outweigh the potential benefits.
- Creation of an Unelected Agency: Question 4 proposes the establishment of a five-person, unelected regulatory agency to oversee the implementation of the law. This model, similar to the flawed Cannabis Control Commission, risks becoming another bureaucratic entity disconnected from the people it is supposed to serve. The history of such agencies, particularly in Oregon, shows a pattern of conflicts of interest, financial mismanagement, and failures to fulfill legal obligations.
- Economic Burden and Inequity: The costs associated with psychedelic treatments, as demonstrated in Oregon, are prohibitively high, with sessions costing between $2,000 and $3,500. This creates a system that caters primarily to wealthy individuals, leaving most citizens unable to access these services. Furthermore, the promise of Medicaid covering these treatments is misleading, given the federal illegality of psychedelics. This could lead to additional financial burdens on taxpayers without delivering the promised benefits.
- Regulatory Overreach and Stifling of Innovation: The stringent regulations proposed under Question 4, including expensive licenses and extensive training requirements, threaten to shutter small businesses and limit the participation of licensed mental health professionals in these treatments. Moreover, the law fails to adequately protect personal innovation, such as home-grown psychedelics, by criminalizing their transport and failing to establish clear standards for personal cultivation.
- Lack of Local Input and Mistrust: The ballot initiative was spearheaded by out-of-state interests without consulting local advocates, further eroding trust in the proposed framework. The prospect of unelected individuals with minimal ties to Massachusetts overseeing this sensitive area of public health only exacerbates concerns about accountability and local control.
Comment: We oppose Question 4 due to the significant overreach it represents in establishing an unelected regulatory agency, the economic inequities it would create, and the potential stifling of personal liberty and innovation. We advocate for a more thoughtful approach that respects individual freedom while avoiding the pitfalls of excessive regulation and bureaucratic inefficiency. Voters should reject Question 4 and instead support measures that promote true personal autonomy and local control without imposing unnecessary burdens on taxpayers and small businesses.
Question 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers
Resolution: ULMA opposes Question 5, which seeks to eliminate the tipped minimum wage and require employers to pay the full minimum wage to tipped workers. We believe this measure represents unnecessary government intervention in private wage agreements, threatens the viability of small businesses, and could reduce opportunities for workers who rely on tips.
Rationale: Libertarian principles emphasize minimal government intervention, the protection of free-market dynamics, and the preservation of individual choice. Question 5’s proposal to eliminate the tipped minimum wage interferes with the voluntary agreements between employers, employees, and customers that currently define the service industry.
- Economic Impact on Small Businesses: The forced increase in labor costs could have a disproportionate impact on small, locally-owned restaurants and tip-based businesses. With already narrow profit margins, these businesses may struggle to absorb the increased costs, leading to higher prices, reduced hiring, and even closures. The potential shift toward chain restaurants and away from unique, local establishments threatens the diversity and character of the Massachusetts dining scene.
- Uncertainty and Risk: The lack of recent precedent for phasing out the tipped minimum wage at the state level introduces significant uncertainty into the market. The experience of the District of Columbia, while instructive, may not fully translate to Massachusetts, and the risks associated with such a sweeping change could outweigh the potential benefits.
- Impact on Workers: While Question 5 aims to increase the earnings of tipped workers, it could have unintended consequences, such as reducing the number of available jobs or shifting employment toward less desirable positions with fewer opportunities for high tips. Additionally, the proposal to allow tip pooling with non-customer-facing staff could reduce the incentive for high-performing servers and bartenders, who often rely on tips as a reward for excellent service.
- Government Overreach: Question 5 represents an unnecessary expansion of government control over private wage agreements. The current system, where tips supplement a base wage, allows for flexibility and rewards performance. Mandating a higher base wage for all tipped workers removes this flexibility and imposes a one-size-fits-all solution on a diverse industry.
Comment: We oppose Question 5 due to its potential negative impact on small businesses, the uncertainty it introduces into the market, and the risk it poses to the livelihood of tipped workers. We believe that wage agreements should be determined by the free market, not by government mandates. Voters should reject Question 5 and support a system that preserves individual choice, encourages entrepreneurship, and respects the voluntary agreements between employers and employees.