Local Races
We have local races for state representative, Governor's Council, and Essex County sheriff. Blogalicious endorses voting for somebody. Honestly, I have no real feel for any of these races, but there are two interesting notes:
- The state representative race features an incumbent Democrat versus a candidate from the United Independent party, a reform-minded party originally formed for the 2014 governor's race. The UI candidate is a bit of a local gadfly, having run for other offices as a Libertarian and an independent.
- The sheriff's race is the first one in decades that does not involve the current sheriff, who is retiring. It's a four way race with a Republican with a background in corrections, a Democrat who is currently the police chief in Lynn, and two independents.
Four statewide questions in Massachusetts this year:
Question 1 would allow for the licensing of a new slot machine parlor. The way it's written limits the location of the parlor to horse tracks, pretty much limiting its location to Suffolk Downs.
We're not against gambling per se, but another slots parlor on top of Plainridge Park, the Wynn casino in Everett, the MGM casino in Springfield, Twin River in Rhode Island, and Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods in Connecticut, just means the regional share of gambling revenue will just be split that much more narrowly. Suffolk Downs is ripe for redevelopment now that it no longer offers regular horse racing, but it needs a plan that can stand on its own. Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 1.
Question 2 would lift the cap on charter schools in the state and allow the approval of 12 new schools (or increased enrollment at existing schools) each year. We're against commodifying public services on principle, and stories like this give us little faith in what is essentially for-profit primary and secondary education. Charter schools with appropriate local control and oversight have their place, but it should be within a revamped public school framework, not by opening the door to the likes of Michelle Rhee. Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 2
Question 3 would ban the confinement of pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens where they cannot enjoy a certain freedom of motion. It also bans the sale of products from animals raised in overly-confined space.
This sounds like a good thing - who among us wants to be intentionally cruel to animals? - but it's an odd question for our state, where only one farm uses methods the question would ban (the linked story is a pretty good overview of both sides of the question). There's also the question of how this will impact food costs, especially for lower income families and individuals. Similarly, the ban on out of state products may weigh more heavily on smaller businesses, who don't have the resources to independently verify that the products they're buying were raised properly.
To our mind, this is probably an issue better served by a more thorough investigation by the legislature that results in legislation better tailored to farming practices in Massachusetts (we can dream, can't we?). Blogalicious endorses a NO vote on Question 3
Question 4 would see Massachusetts follow Colorado and Washington in legalizing marijuana use for anyone 21 and older. Individuals would be allowed to use, grow, and possess marijuana subject to certain guidelines and limitations (no use in public, limits to amounts one can possess and grow at any one time). A state board would regulate the sale and taxation of marijuana and related products.
Supporters see this as a common sense move that would put marijuana on par with alcohol and tobacco, provide new revenue, and remove non-violent drug offenses from court dockets. Opponents voice concern over public health and safety, the potential accessibility of marijuana for minors, and consequences for cities and towns home to marijuana stores (as depicted in a charmingly absurd TV ad).
We understand the concerns of those opposed to legalization, and there would clearly be a need to review how this gets implemented and what impacts it has on individuals and communities, but looking at other states, their experience suggests that the benefits of "legalize and tax" outweigh the negatives. Blogalicious endorses a YES vote on Question 4
President
We often endorse a third party option here - though usually in general (more than once) - and this seems like the perfect year to follow the trend. Neither major party candidate is especially well-liked, both have significant baggage, and the two best-known third-party candidates are back from the 2012 campaign (Gary Johnson for the Libertarians, Jill Stein for the Greens). And then there's Evan McMullen, the conservative independent whose run is motivated by providing an alternative to Donald Trump for Republicans.
But these options have their drawbacks as well. Gary Johnson showed his limitations on foreign policy with his Aleppo moment and inability to name a world leader. Jill Stein has gone around the bend in her quest for votes, courting both anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers. Evan McMullin is in the best position to win electoral votes, but his road to victory involves the election going to Congress (he's also only on the ballot in 11 states).
Which leaves us with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And if the Arizona Republic, which has never endorsed a Democrat in its 126 year history, opts to do so, it's a pretty clear sign. Trump is woefully underqualified and tempermentally unfit to serve as the leader of the free world. Blogalicious endorses Hillary Clinton.