Statewide and local ballot questions

Voters will decide on three statewide ballot initiatives November 5. The first would eliminate the state income tax. It’s a nutty proposal backed by Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Carla Howell. If it were to pass, the state would see 60 percent of its revenues dry up. These are the monies we use to fund schools, police and fire departments, health care, libraries, human services, and Medicaid. Its passage would also devastate the state’s bond rating, thus costing even more money in debt service. Howell’s claims that its passage would create more jobs defy credulity. The Phoenix recommends voting no on Question One.

The second question would end the current practice of bilingual education in public schools for non-English speaking students. Instead, these students would be taught all of their classroom subjects, with rare exceptions, in English. After a period of adjustment in these "English immersion" classes, ideally lasting no longer than one school year, students would be moved into regular classrooms. A similar measure was enacted in California and has, by most standards, failed. In fact, non-English speaking students in California currently spend more time in their "English immersion" classes, on average, than students learning English under the Commonwealth’s bilingual education program. The Phoenix recommends voting no on Question Two.

The last statewide question is a sneaky attempt to kill the Clean Elections law once and for all. It was placed on the ballot by the state legislature. In exchange for approving $3.8 million in funding for qualified Clean Elections candidates, House Speaker Tom Finneran insisted that a question be placed on the ballot asking voters if they "favor or oppose taxpayer money being used to fund political campaigns for public office" in Massachusetts. It’s easy to see how this is likely to go. There’s no mention of limiting campaign spending or blunting the influence of special interests. Even worse, this is a purely political question: it’s nonbinding, which means it won’t enact law. It will simply instruct legislators on how voters feel about the Clean Elections Law. It’s narrowly constructed, however, to all but ensure that voters will defeat it, thus giving Clean Elections opponents a high-profile public-relations victory to trumpet in support of their advocacy against the law. But voters passed the Clean Elections law by an overwhelming margin in 1998. Incumbent legislators oppose the law because it makes it easier for challengers to run against them. Perhaps the question should have been phrased differently. Here’s one suggestion, inspired by Common Cause’s analysis of the measure: Do voters approve of "campaign finance reform that would force legislators to compete for their taxpayer-funded jobs?" The Phoenix recommends voting yes on Question Three.

A number of nonbinding referendums will appear on the ballots of districts where proponents were able to gather at least 200 signatures. Nonbinding referendums do not make law, they simply advise the elected district representatives of voter sentiment. Voters in most precincts of Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston will be asked if their state representative should "be instructed not to vote for Thomas M. Finneran of Boston for Speaker" of the House of Representatives. Finneran has used his leadership position to stymie everything from the proper implementation of the Clean Elections law to enactment of domestic-partnership legislation. The Phoenix recommends voting yes to instructing state reps not to re-elect Finneran as House Speaker.

Voters in most precincts of Boston will be asked to instruct their state representatives to "make possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation" rather than a criminal one. This is pure common sense. The Phoenix recommends voting yes to instructing state reps to decriminalize marijuana possession.

Voters in many precincts of western Massachusetts will be asked to instruct their state representatives to "vote in favor of legislation or a constitutional amendment to establish instant runoff voting." This is an idea ripe for Massachusetts. The way it works is that statewide elections with three or more candidates would see voters ranking their candidates in order of preference. If we had instant-runoff voting in Massachusetts today, progressives could give their number-one vote to Jill Stein and their number two vote to Shannon O’Brien. In this way, a vote for Stein would not be, in effect, a vote for Romney and winning candidates would literally see where their support came from. The Phoenix recommends voting yes to instructing state reps to implement instant runoff voting.

We’ve noted this before, but it bears repeating. For the sixth-consecutive legislative-election season, the percentage of uncontested races has gone up, according to the Massachusetts Money and Politics Project. Only 27 percent of legislative seats will be contested November 5. This is pathetic.

That said, there are two interesting legislative races locally where voters will get to make a choice. In the 29th Middlesex House district (Somerville and Cambridge), Green Party candidate Paul Lachelier is running against incumbent Democrat Tim Toomey. Lachilier is running as a Clean Elections candidate. He is an appealing newcomer (he moved to Somerville just two years ago) deeply committed to making government work for its citizens. His campaign Web site (www.electpaul.info) has enough good-government ideas to satisfy the wonkiest of wonks. The Phoenix enthusiastically endorses Paul Lachelier for state representative. Toomey, meanwhile, is against Clean Elections and he supports Tom Finneran for House Speaker. Voters should give him an early retirement.

The seat in the 15th Suffolk House district (Mission Hill, Fort Hill of Roxbury, Hyde Square of Jamaica Plain, and Fisher Hill of Brookline) was vacated when long-time representative Kevin Fitzgerald stepped down to purse the post of State House sergeant at arms. Jeffrey Sanchez won the crowded Democratic primary with the tacit backing of Boston mayor Tom Menino. He faces independent candidate George Chidi. Chidi is a maverick. He doesn’t belong to a political party. His background includes stints in the army infantry and reserves. And he has an appealing platform: he’s against any local form of a defense-of-marriage act, which would essentially prevent gay people from marrying. He opposes capital punishment and supports affirmative action. He wants to see nightclubs stay open longer. Chidi is also running as a Clean Elections candidate against a pol who opposes public financing of campaigns. The Phoenix enthusiastically endorses George Chidi for state representative.

Note: our endorsements last week for Dan Grabauskas for treasurer and Eddie Jenkins for Suffolk County district attorney are available online at BostonPhoenix.com.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com

Legislative endorsements