Next Tuesday, Marblehead voters will head to the polls — if they haven’t voted early, or by mail — to cast their votes on elected offices and nine binding referendum questions and one non-binding question, number 10 on the ballot.
In recent weeks, the Current has provided detailed descriptions of each question. Today, we offer our positions on them for your consideration.
Question 1: Expanding the public records law
Voting in favor of this question would make the governor’s office and state legislature subject to our existing public records law. On these pages we have previously voiced our support for Question 1. Massachusetts is the only state in the country that does not include these governmental bodies in its public records law. We support transparency in government at all levels, and we support a “yes” vote on Question 1.
Question 2: Collective bargaining for CPCS employees
The Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) provides attorneys in our courts to persons who qualify for court-appointed counsel. They provide a valuable service to ensure the protection of constitutional rights of Massachusetts individuals — including Marblehead residents — who are unable to afford an attorney. CPCS employees, unlike other state agencies, have no right to collectively bargain. We see no convincing argument against granting them the same right to collectively bargain, and for this reason we support a “yes” vote on Question 2.
Question 3: State primary elections
Support for this question would eliminate the two-party primary system under which we choose are finalists for state-wide elective positions. Should this question pass, no longer would there be separate Democrat and Republican ballots for primaries. Instead, all candidates would appear on a single primary ballot with the top two vote-getters moving on to the final election. Proponents of this question argue that we live in such a “blue state” with many districts failing to even field Republican candidates for primaries that voters would have more of a choice by sending the competitive choices for consideration in final elections. We disagree. To coin an oft-used phrase, we believe, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” We support a “no” vote on Question 3.
Question 4: Election day registration
This question, if passed, would allow eligible citizens the right to register to vote up to and including election day, provided they produce proof of residency and sign an oath affirming their eligibility. Numerous states already allow for same-day registration. Casting one’s vote is the foundation of our liberty and democracy. While we recognize this can provide additional work for our election officials, we are confident they can capably handle this additional task. We support a “yes” vote on Question 4.
Question 5: State revenue limit and rebate
This is a complicated ballot question. Passage has the potential to reduce the allowable amount of annual state revenues to be retained, which could negatively impact available funds to be paid to municipalities — including Marblehead — for essential services, the result of which could further strain available resources to cover such costs. We see no viable reason to make this change. We support a “no” vote on Question 5.
Question 6: Natural resources conservation fund
Passage of this question would establish the Nature for All Fund and dedicate certain existing state tax revenues associated with sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf to conservation and recreation programs with such funds being used for projects involving parks, forests, wildlife habitats and other natural resources. Marblehead currently places much emphasis on conservation and our rail trails. We believe an affirmative vote on this question is wholly consistent with the town’s commitment to these topics. We support a “yes” vote on Question 6.
Question 7: Single-family homes
Passage of Question 7 would allow as a matter of right for the construction of single-family homes on lots that have at least 5,000 square feet of area, provided such lots have at least 50 feet of frontage and connections to public water and sewer. We recognize that there is disagreement among our town leaders on whether to support this question but — much like the MBTA Communities Act, which the town has complied with — establishment of this right does not mandate construction, and passage can provide further opportunities to address the need for more housing opportunities in Marblehead. We support a “yes” vote on Question 7.
Question 8: Prohibit retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana
Passage of this question would prohibit retail sales of recreational marijuana and the allowance of its home cultivation. These rights have been in place for the past 10 years. Numerous businesses now exist, thousands of people around the state are employed and consumers have the ability to legally purchase marijuana. We do not believe we should return to a past where users of marijuana — who are numerous — would have to purchase the product from unregulated drug dealers. Massachusetts voters clearly supported the rights now sought to be repealed in this question. We support a “no” vote on Question 8.
Question 9: Firearms regulation
This is a potentially confusing Question. One might think — without reading the actual question — that it is calling for more firearms regulation. For those who believe we do not need any more regulations, it would be easy to vote “no.” However, what this question actually asks is whether voters support firearm regulations that were enacted in 2024. In other words, a “yes” vote is an affirmation of what we already have in place, while a “no” vote would undo state laws. Massachusetts has enacted numerous firearms laws intended to protect our citizenry while at the same time recognizing the Second Amendment right to bear arms. We believe our existing laws should remain unchanged. We support a “yes” vote on Question 9.
Question 10: Carbon pollution fees legislative request
This is a non-binding referendum question that calls upon our state legislators to introduce legislation to require companies to pay a fee for carbon pollution. Should it pass, there is no requirement such legislation will be offered. We find this to be a topic worthy of more investigation and discussion after which there would be the ability to make more informed decisions on the merits of such a law. In this spirit of encouraging more information and debate, we support a “yes” vote on Question 10.
