Ballots for those who will vote by mail are beginning to arrive at the homes of Lowell residents this week. Besides all the elected offices, there are also five referendum questions on this ballot. They haven’t received a lot of attention so I’ll start with a quick synopsis of each:

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

A YES vote would specify that the State Auditor has the authority to audit the Legislature.

A NO vote would leave current law as is (which is, the Auditor does not have that authority).

The argument for YES is that the State Auditor is independently elected by voters and currently audits every other office of state government. Permitting the Auditor to audit the legislature will provide “much needed transparency” of the legislature which has been ranked as one of the least transparent legislatures in the country.

The argument for NO is that the State Auditor is an executive branch officer and the separation of powers required by the Massachusetts Constitution would be violated by granting a member of the executive branch such authority over the legislative branch. Additionally, performing audits of the legislature would turn the State Auditor into an overtly political office holder and would jeopardize the office’s independence in its other duties.

Question 2 – Elimination of MCAS as High School Graduation Requirement

A YES vote would eliminate the requirement that a high school student pass MCAS to graduate.

A NO vote would retain the existing requirement that a high school student pass MCAS to graduate.

The argument for YES is that MCAS is a one-size-fits all exam that fails to measure grades, course work, and teacher assessments in determining if a student is allowed to graduate. Eliminating the MCAS requirement will allow teachers to stop “teaching to the test” and will relieve students of the stress of a high stake “make or break” test.

The argument for NO is that without any statewide assessment, school districts will just define down what constitutes success and will allow students who have not mastered the material to graduate which is unfair to the students. The NO argument also maintains that major changes in educational policy should be made after careful study and analysis, not based on a ballot referendum.

Question 3 – Unionization for Transportation Network Drivers

A YES vote would allow “transportation network drivers” (people who drive for Uber or Lyft) to form unions to collectively bargain with “transportation network companies” for wages, benefits and terms of employment.

A NO vote would make no change to existing law.

The argument for YES is that most workers have the right to join a union but drivers for Uber and Lyft do not. Allowing them to unionize will permit them to collectively bargain for wages and benefits while maintaining driver flexibility and independence.

The argument for NO is that such drivers in Massachusetts already receive market-rate salaries and benefits and that allowing them to unionize will only divert money that would otherwise go to drivers to go towards union dues without any measurable benefits flowing to the drivers.

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

A YES vote would allow people over 21 to use certain psychedelic substances (mushrooms, mescaline, etc.) under licensed supervision and to grow a limited amount in their home.

A NO vote would make no change to existing law.

The argument for YES is that these medicines show promise in treating conditions such as PTSD, anxiety and depression. Research at leading medical institutions has shown the potential benefits of these substances, and many medical professionals support this change to the law.

The argument for NO is that legalizing psychedelics would increase the incidence of drugged driving; would elevate the risk of life-threatening adverse reactions; would make accidental consumption by children and pets more likely; and would likely create a black market for such products.

Question 5 – Minimum Wage for Tipped workers

A YES vote would gradually increase the minimum wage of tipped workers over five years to the full state minimum wage after which employers would be required to pool all tips and distribute them equally to all non-management employees.

A NO vote would make no change to existing law.

The argument for YES is that tipped workers, who now are paid just $6.75 per hour plus tips, deserve the full minimum wage with tips on top. Many small businesses already pay their employees the full minimum wage so the current law makes tips a subsidy for low wages paid by large corporations rather than a reward for good service.

The argument for NO is that most tipped employees believe they make more under the current system than they would with a higher minimum wage and that implementing this law would force some restaurants out of business and raise prices for consumers.

****

As for the offices on the ballot, here are the candidates as they appear on my ballot:

Electors of President and Vice President

Ayyadurai and Ellis – Independent
De La Cruz and Garcia – Socialism and Liberation
Harris and Walz – Democratic
Oliver and Ter Maat – Libertarian
Stein and Caballero-Roca – Green-Rainbow Party
Trump and Vance – Republican

Senator in Congress

Elizabeth Ann Warren of Cambridge – Democratic – candidate for re-election
John Deaton of Swansea – Republican

Representative in Congress

Lori Loureiro Trahan of Westford – Democratic – candidate for re-election (unopposed)

(Governor’s) Councillor

Anne M. Manning-Martin of Peabody – Republican
Eunice Delice Zeigler of Methuen – Democratic
Jody A Elliott of Salem – Independent

Senator in General Court (First Middlesex)

Edward J Kennedy Jr of Lowell – Democratic – candidate for re-election
Karla J Miller of Lowell – Republican

Representative in General Court (Eighteenth Middlesex)

Tara Hong of Lowell – Democratic
David Michael Ouellette of Lowell – Unenrolled

Clerk of Courts

Michael A Sullivan of Cambridge – Democratic – candidate for re-election (unopposed)

Register of Deeds

Karen M. Cassella of Lowell – Democratic – (unopposed)

****

Also on Lowell ballots this November are seats on the Greater Lowell Vocational School Committee. There are two seats from Lowell and one seat from Dracut, however, everyone in the Vocational School District – meaning voters from Lowell, Dracut, Tyngsborough, and Dunstable – will be voting for all of those committee members.

On my ballot, first comes the Dracut seat, with one candidate, Paul E. Morin, who is a candidate for reelection. Then come the two seats from Lowell. The candidates are Lee Gitschier and Curtis J. LeMay, both candidates for reelection.

To review, this process came about several years ago when the prior method of electing vocational school committee members was challenged because it gave greater weight to the votes of residents of the three towns in the district than it did voters in the city of Lowell. Under the old system, only Lowell voters voted for the Lowell representatives; only Dracut voters voted for the Dracut representative; and so on.

Under the current system, all voters in the district vote for the representatives of each community in the district. The retention of the community representatives is a key aspect of the new system, since if all candidates were lumped into the same electoral pool regardless of their town of residence, it’s likely that the top vote getters would always be Lowell candidates given the population disparity in favor of the city.

To illustrate how this works, let’s change the facts that exist this year. Instead of two candidates from Lowell and one candidate from Dracut running to fill three seats, let’s assume there were four candidates from Lowell and just the one from Dracut. Given the number of voters in Lowell relative to the number in Dracut, and the likelihood that voters from Lowell would vote for candidates from Lowell, the Lowell candidates would likely be the top vote getters. In a winner-take-all system that ignores town of residence, that would mean the three seats would be filled by Lowell candidates.

To prevent that outcome, the current system slots the candidates by town. As I mention above, this year the ballot grouping has the two Lowell candidates running for two seats while another grouping has the one Dracut candidate running for the one seat. It’s as if they are entirely separate offices.

In any case, there is no drama to this race since the number of candidates equals the number of seats on the ballot. This is part of a larger trend we saw last year in the Lowell School Committee race where a majority of the seats were uncontested.

****

Occasionally in past issues I’ve mentioned the MBTA Communities Law which is a state program designed to create more housing in the vicinity of mass transit opportunities. Every municipality serviced by the MBTA, including commuter rail, or adjacent to a municipality serviced by the MBTA, is required by the law to amend its local zoning ordinance to allow for and remove obstacles to denser housing.

Lowell rapidly and without controversy adopted the provisions of the MBTA Communities law, mostly because the areas of the city where the changes would occur were already densely packed with existing multifamily housing. But in other communities, mostly those predominantly composed of single-family neighborhoods, the resistance to multifamily housing has been intense.

This past week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments in a case brought by the town of Milton that challenges the legality of the MBTA Communities law. I won’t get into the details of the argument but will say that the outcome of this case has major implications beyond the MBTA Communities law. The decision will go to the heart of which entity has legal supremacy, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or its cities and towns. How might this affect Lowell? Well even though the city adopted the MBTA law without controversy, the same passivity is unlikely in the face of the recently passed State Housing bill that mandates the allowance of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in all single-family neighborhoods. Last year, after an intense political struggle, the Lowell City Council rejected the concept of ADUs; now, state law will require that they be allowed. Will Lowell comply? The intensity of past opposition suggests not willingly, if at all. This recent SJC case may have a substantial bearing on the ultimate answer to that question. The decision is not expected for at least a month, but as soon as it is announced, I’ll report on the holding and its implications.

****

There was a Lowell City Council meeting last Tuesday. One motion that generated comment and discussion was by Erik Gitschier asking that the proper department “offer services, notify and removal all individuals tenting, sleeping, and tarping around the South Common by October 29, 2024.” Councilor Vesna Nuon made a substitute motion that would leave it to the City Manager’s discretion and judgment to implement these things, however, that motion failed with only Nuon and Wayne Jenness voting for it. Then the primary motion passed unanimously although the deadline was extended to mid-November. The reason for that was to synchronize it with the forthcoming ordinance that would ban overnight camping within a certain distance of a school.

Certainly, camping on the South Common is a big problem, one that essentially makes this vital public park unusable to everyone else. Still, experience has shown that displacing campers from that site will just move them elsewhere and won’t begin to solve the underlying causes of the problem.

****

The Council also continued the public hearing on the possible taking and demolition of four residences in the city. The City Solicitor reported that people responsible for two of those properties have taken steps to get them into compliance with all codes and up to date on their taxes; and that the city has yet been unsuccessful in “serving” those responsible for the other two. Without service in the legal and procedural sense, the city could not go forward with these hearings.  For that reason, and because several other properties might be added to the demolition hearing, the Solicitor asked that the public hearing be continued to October 29, 2024, which the council did.

****

Today at 11am is the official unveiling of the Jack Kerouac Mural that has been painted on the side of the former St. Jean Baptiste Church on upper Merrimack Street. The church is the future home of the Kerouac Center and the unveiling and related events at the site are part of this year’s Lowell Celebrates Kerouac Weekend. Today’s event is free and open to the public.