Voters will encounter three questions on the ballot for the state election scheduled for Tuesday, November 6. These three proposals could hardly be more different from one another.
Question 1 proposes a new state law mandating minimum nurse staffing levels across all hospitals in the state. When we began reviewing the full text of this extensive proposed legislation, we found ourselves struggling through technical language familiar to medical professionals but obscure to most others.
That said, it appears those behind this initiative understand the subject matter well.
Few would argue that nursing care represents anything less than essential to hospital patients. Similarly, preventable errors in hospital treatment remain a significant factor in patient deaths, even in top-tier facilities.
The core issue with this ballot question boils down to weighing costs against benefits: Does the expense of implementing minimum nurse staffing levels (the actual cost remains unclear) justify the clear advantages for patient safety and care?
Question 2 seeks a U.S. Constitutional amendment restricting spending by corporations. This amendment aims to reverse the Citizens United ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down Congressional restrictions on corporate campaign expenditures.
When considering this question, voters should remember the observation by Louis Brandeis: “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
Amending the Constitution represents the only path to overturning Citizens United — undoubtedly a drastic step.
Question 3 asks for approval of an existing state law passed by the legislature in 2016 that prohibits discrimination based on transgender status. The law has operated successfully and enjoys backing from numerous organizations and groups, including the Mass. Police Chiefs Association. Voting “Yes” maintains the existing law.