Massachusetts’ top legislative leaders have not ruled out making changes to several ballot questions set to be voted on in the upcoming election. These ballot questions cover a range of issues, including a proposal that would allow for an audit of the state Legislature. House Speaker Ronald Mariano, in particular, has expressed skepticism about this audit initiative, which is being spearheaded by Auditor Diana DiZoglio as part of her campaign for Question 1. Mariano has questioned the use of state resources to promote this initiative and is considering whether to support its repeal.
Mariano’s concerns go beyond just Question 1. He mentioned the possibility of revisiting any of the five ballot questions if they are passed by voters. When asked about the potential for repealing laws created by these ballot questions, he referenced the fate of the Clean Elections Act, a voter-approved law from 1998 that was repealed by the Legislature in 2003 without ever being fully implemented. This example highlights how lawmakers in Massachusetts can override voter decisions, raising questions about the future of these new ballot measures.
One of the most hotly debated questions is Question 2, which seeks to eliminate the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) as a high school graduation requirement. Senate President Karen Spilka has expressed concerns about this proposal, stating that MCAS has served as an important tool for educational assessment in the state. She left open the possibility of discussions and potential amendments to the law if voters approve it, indicating that the Legislature may take action after the election.
In addition to these concerns, other ballot questions have garnered attention from both lawmakers and the public. For example, Question 4, which would legalize the use and cultivation of certain psychedelic substances, has prompted a more personal response from Mariano. He jokingly remarked about outgrowing the use of psychedelics but admitted that he has not yet made a decision on how to approach the proposal. His office later clarified that he was joking, underscoring the complexity of some of the questions on the ballot.
As the election approaches, both Mariano and Spilka have signaled that voter approval may not be the final word on these ballot questions. Legislative action, whether through amendments or repeals, could follow swiftly, much like the process that occurred after the cannabis legalization vote in 2016. This openness to revisiting voter-approved laws means that even if voters pass these measures, their ultimate implementation may depend on further legislative debate and decisions.
COMMENTARY:
The idea that Massachusetts lawmakers might override voter-approved ballot initiatives is nothing short of an assault on democracy. It’s outrageous that leaders like House Speaker Ronald Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka would even consider dismantling decisions made by the very people who elected them. This is not just bad governance; it’s a blatant disregard for the will of the people. When voters speak, their voices should matter. To turn around and say, “Well, we’ll see if we decide to honor your choice,” is insulting. It’s as though lawmakers believe they know better than the voters and will manipulate the outcome to fit their own agendas. This is democracy in name only if they can ignore or rewrite what the people have demanded.
The audacity of this behavior is infuriating. What’s the point of even having ballot questions if lawmakers can swoop in and change the rules whenever they see fit? If voters approve a law, it should be law—period. But instead, Mariano and Spilka are entertaining the idea of overturning decisions like they did with the Clean Elections Act. That precedent shows that no matter what the people want, lawmakers can crush it if it doesn’t suit their interests. It’s a slap in the face to every voter who took the time to understand the issues, cast their ballot, and engage in the democratic process. The message from Beacon Hill is clear: “Your vote only counts if we agree with you.”
This kind of political arrogance should enrage every citizen. If elected officials can casually ignore the results of a fair election, then we’re not living in a democracy—we’re living under the whims of an elite few. What makes it worse is that they pretend to uphold democracy while doing it. Lawmakers are supposed to serve the people, not override their will whenever they see fit. If they can’t respect the voters’ choices, then they are not fit to lead. This isn’t representation—it’s betrayal.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t just a technical debate about policy. This is about power—who has it and who doesn’t. When the Legislature overturns a law that voters passed, it’s a power grab, plain and simple. It shows that these lawmakers believe they can act with impunity, ignoring the voices of the very people who put them in office. This is how governments lose legitimacy—when they put their own interests ahead of the people’s and undermine the democratic process in the process. It’s infuriating and unacceptable.
If the Legislature goes ahead with these moves, it will damage the foundations of democracy in Massachusetts. People will lose faith in voting, and why wouldn’t they? If their decisions can be undone at the whim of a few politicians, why bother engaging at all? This is a dangerous path, and it must be stopped. Voter-approved laws must be respected—anything less is a betrayal of democracy itself.
ARTICLE:
Discover more from Free News and Commentary Today
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
