In a week, Brookline voters will cast their ballots in an election that everyone has been talking about for months: the presidential election. But the president and vice president are not the only items on the ticket. In addition to the nationwide question of who will be the next president, Massachusetts has one contested senatorial race and five binding statewide ballot questions that may alter state law. The electoral outcomes of these items have the potential to change history on a statewide and national level. Here’s what you need to know about voting in the election and about everything on the ballot other than the presidential ticket:

Election day is Tuesday, Nov. 5. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Find your polling place at tinyurl.com/BrooklineVotingInfo.
Early voting begins Saturday, Oct. 19 and continues through Friday, Nov. 1. For more information about when and where to vote early in-person, visit tinyurl.com/BrooklineEarlyVoting2024.
The deadline for registering to vote is Saturday, Oct. 26. To register to vote online, visit VoteInMA.com.
The deadline for requesting a mail-in ballot is Tuesday, Oct. 29. To request a mail-in ballot, visit tinyurl.com/BrooklineVoteByMail.

Ballot Questions:

Question 1: State Auditor’s Authority to Audit the Legislature

This question asks voters whether or not the state auditor should be explicitly authorized to audit the state legislature.

A YES VOTE would expressly authorize the auditor to audit the legislature.
A NO VOTE would make no change to state law: the auditor would continue to lack the authority to audit the legislature.

Arguments in favor:
The Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan organization that advocates for transparent government, gave the Massachusetts legislature an F for transparency. Legislative committees are notoriously opaque: bills often die in committee with little to no explanation and votes are not always recorded. The Massachusetts Public Record Law does not apply to the legislature, allowing the House and Senate to conduct business largely out of the public view whenever they see fit. As such, they have refused to provide documents requested by the state auditor. A YES VOTE, proponents argue, would increase government transparency, allowing constituents to better hold their representatives accountable for their actions in office.

Arguments opposed:
Opponents argue that allowing the auditor—an executive branch official—to audit the legislature without its consent would be detrimental to the state’s separation of powers and would violate the state’s constitution, which requires legislative supremacy. The auditor, they argue, would evaluate the legislature by comparing its performance to their own goals, not the legislature’s goals. This may give the auditor undue influence over the legislative process and corrode the legislature’s autonomy. Opponents argue that a NO VOTE would help maintain separation of powers and allow the legislature to make decisions without outside influence.

Question 2: Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation Requirement

This question asks voters whether or not the 10th grade Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) should remain a requirement for receiving a high school diploma.

A YES VOTE would eliminate the requirement that students pass the 10th grade MCAS in order to graduate high school. Students would continue taking the MCAS exam, but it would not play a role in determining whether or not they graduate. Students would still be required to meet local and state course requirements in order to graduate.
A NO VOTE would make no changes to state law. Students would still be required to pass the 10th grade MCAS in order to graduate high school.

Arguments in favor:
Massachusetts is one of only eight states where benchmark scores on standardized tests are a graduation requirement. Teachers have expressed concerns about having to teach to the test, rather than teaching content they find meaningful. Additionally, high-income students tend to score higher than low-income students. Likewise, Black, Hispanic and Latino students disproportionately score lower on the MCAS than their white and Asian peers. Proponents argue that the high-stakes nature of the MCAS is unfair; whether or not a student graduates should be based on their grades, coursework and teacher assessments, not a one-time test. A YES VOTE, they say, would enable schools to teach skills and knowledge that will help students succeed in life, rather than on a test.

Arguments opposed:
Opponents argue that if the MCAS graduation requirement—the only state-wide graduation requirement—is eliminated, some school districts may adopt lower standards to boost their graduation rates. In order to pass the MCAS, students must score 472 in English Language Arts, 486 in Math and 220 in Science and Technology, out of a total 560 possible points, respectively. If students cannot meet those benchmarks, opponents argue, they should not graduate. Rather than removing the barrier, we should better prepare them for the test. A NO VOTE, opponents argue, would prevent an untested proposal that will significantly alter the Massachusetts public education system and potentially have a disproportionate effect on educational standards in different districts.

Question 3: Unionization for Transportation Network Drivers

This question asks voters whether or not ride-share drivers (Uber, Lyft, etc.) should have the right to form unions for collective bargaining with ride-share companies.

A YES VOTE would allow ride-share drivers to form unions for the purpose of collective bargaining.
A NO VOTE would make no changes to state law: ride-share drivers would continue to lack the legal right to form unions.

Arguments in favor:
Because ride-share app drivers are considered independent contractors rather than employees, the National Labor Relations Act does not protect their right to form unions. This question would not necessarily create a union, but gives drivers the choice to make one if they see fit. That choice is important, proponents say. A YES VOTE would put ride-share drivers on par with other workers who have the right to form a union.

Arguments opposed:
Ride-share drivers in Massachusetts already have base-level pay of $32.50 per hour, paid sick leave, paid family medical leave, healthcare stipends, on-the-job injury insurance, anti-discrimination protections and domestic violence leave, among other benefits. If ride share drivers were to unionize, ride share costs would go up. Some have raised concerns that unionization would decrease drivers’ wages, as some of their income would go towards union dues. A NO VOTE, opponents argue, would protect drivers and riders.

Question 4: Limited Legalization and Regulation of Certain Natural Psychedelic Substances

This question asks voters whether or not to legalize the cultivation, sale and use of certain psychedelic substances found in mushrooms and other plants for people over the age of 21.

A YES VOTE would legalize the cultivation, sale and use of certain psychedelic substances for people over the age of 21 and would create a commission to regulate those substances.
A NO VOTE would make no change to state law: psychedelic substances would remain illegal.

Arguments in favor:
Research has found that psychedelics can have “substantial antidepressant effects.” The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has designated psychedelics as a “breakthrough therapy” for treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Clinical trials are currently exploring the effect of psychedelics on a number of other conditions. A YES VOTE, opponents argue, would expand access to mental-health options, and would particularly benefit veterans, who often struggle with PTSD, depression, suicide and other mental health issues.

Arguments opposed:
The psychedelic ibogaine, which would be legalized by this question, has been observed to occasionally induce cardiotoxicity and cardiac arrest. One in ten people who report regularly using psychedelics also report driving under the influence of psychedelics. Furthermore, the law does not adequately regulate supervised consumption sites, opponents argue. Under this policy, supervised consumption sites would not be prohibited from giving psychedelics to high risk patients who may have schizophrenia, bipolar depression or be pregnant. A NO VOTE, opponents argue, would protect the public from potentially dangerous substances.

Question 5: Minimum Wage for Tipped Workers

This question asks voters whether the minimum wage for tipped workers should be raised to equal the minimum wage for non-tipped workers over the next five years.

A YES VOTE would raise the minimum wage for tipped workers from $6.75 an hour to $15 an hour by 2029.
A NO VOTE would make no change to state law. Minimum wage for tipped workers would remain $6.75 plus tips.

Arguments in favor:
Seven states already require employers to pay tipped workers full minimum wage. Tips should be a reward for quality service, not a subsidy for low wages. Large corporations in particular should have to pay their fair share to their employees; that burden should not fall on customers. A YES VOTE, proponents argue, would promote job security for tipped workers.

Arguments opposed:
Many tipped employees already make well over $15 an hour with tips. Increasing the minimum wage would raise costs for businesses and customers. Some tipped workers may even lose their jobs if increased operation costs from paying a higher minimum wage forces businesses to close. A NO VOTE, opponents argue, would decrease job security for tipped workers.

Senatorial race:

Also on the ballot is a contested race for senator. There is one Republican, John Deaton, and one Democrat, Elizabeth Warren, on the ballot. Read more about their platforms here.