Why we need a ballot question to fix ballot questions

This column is from Trendlines, my business newsletter that covers the forces shaping the economy in Boston and beyond. If you’d like to receive it via email on Mondays and Thursdays, sign up here.

Read more Dianna Russini was an NFL ‘insider.’ Was she also out of bounds?

Hey, Massachusetts, which do you hate more: our do-little Legislature or the proliferation of ballot measures backed by big money from labor unions, business groups, and other special interests?

I’m fed up with both.

Unfortunately, we’re stuck with the Legislature. And for all its flaws, the ballot initiative is a powerful tool for citizens to take action when lawmakers can’t or won’t.

But: We could trim the number of marginal or potentially divisive proposals reaching the ballot. That would save time, money, and energy, and allow voters, who are often busy with their lives and less informed about policy nuances, to focus on the most important issues.

The most promising fix: lifting the approval threshold to a two-thirds majority. Under current law, most ballot questions pass with a simple majority, as long as the measure was approved by at least 30 percent of all voters in the election.

Setting a higher bar for success would discourage groups from committing money to campaigns that lack good prospects of drawing broad support.

“I’ve been thinking about this for several years,” Bob Rivers, executive chair of Eastern Bank, said as he pitched me on the idea for the two-thirds approval minimum. “We need tougher standards.”

He prefers that approach over raising the number of signatures required to get on the ballot, another idea that’s been floated along with reining in paid-signature gatherers.

Driving the news: It’s been a big year for Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which in 1918 established the process for putting initiatives, referendums, and constitutional amendments in front of voters.

Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell’s office certified a record 44 petitions for this year’s ballot. Twelve were on track for a November vote — until the state’s highest court began ruling on a half-dozen legal challenges, ultimately knocking three high-profile measures off the ballot.

In May, Campbell reversed her decision to certify a ballot question to overhaul stipends for lawmakers after the Supreme Judicial Court advised that the measure was unconstitutional.

Then in rulings over the past week, the SJC rejected an initiative to cut the state income tax to 4 percent from 5 percent and another to impose statewide rent increase restrictions on landlords.

Read more A history of living on hope: Cape Verdeans ready to watch their team surprise the world — again

In the tax cut case, the court said the required summary prepared by Campbell’s office — which voters would have seen on their ballots —was wrong. In the rent control case, the court said the initiative violated the Constitution by exempting rental units in religious facilities.

Why it matters: The barrage of ballot measures, combined with the SJC rejections, has put Article 48 in a harsh spotlight — and even sparked conspiracy theories that Campbell intentionally mishandled the propositions because they were largely opposed by fellow Democrats on Beacon Hill.

Article 48 hasn’t been revised since 1944, when voters approved changes to how proposed laws and constitutional amendments are presented to voters, including requiring a “fair, concise” summary by the attorney general.

Quote me: Campbell herself has said ballot question certification by the attorney general is a “stupid process founded by some other people” that needs to be “revamped.”

The attorney general is authorized to bar Article 48 ballot questions if they involve religion, powers of the courts, appointment of judges, or appropriation of money from the state treasury. Campbell has said her office also should be allowed to weigh whether the measures are constitutional.

That proposal and the higher approval promoted by Eastern Bank’s Rivers would attack the ballot question glut from opposite ends. Rivers’ threshold would discourage weak campaigns from launching — and keep narrowly approved measures from becoming law. Campbell’s would screen out constitutionally doomed ones before they burn millions on signature drives and lawsuits.

Rivers said citizens would need to lead the push to amend Article 48. It would be politically untenable for the Legislature to initiate that effort because doing so would look like lawmakers trying to shield their own authority from challenge.

“Next year is a quieter year,” he said, without the competing fund-raising distractions of the World Cup, the statewide celebrations of the country’s 250th anniversary, and midterm elections. “It’s the absolute time to get on it.”

Pros and cons: While ballot initiatives are a democratic counterweight to the Legislature, their shortcomings are many:

• Oversimplification. Complex policy questions may get flattened into yes/no votes, stripping out the nuance legislatures could otherwise negotiate.
• Influence of big money. Wealthy corporations, unions, and interest groups can dominate costly signature-gathering and ad campaigns, sidelining grassroots efforts.
• Poorly informed electorate. Voters often lack sufficient information, especially when several questions are on the ballot.
• Inflexibility. Initiatives can lock rigid provisions into place, limiting future legislatures’ flexibility.
• Contradictory mandates: Voters sometimes approve conflicting measures — like demanding tax cuts while expanding spending — without any mechanism to reconcile the resulting fiscal contradictions.

Final thought: Article 48 initiatives may be a necessary evil, but the process has to be tougher to get them on the ballot or approved by voters.

Ironically, any change will require a ballot vote to amend the Massachusetts Constitution.

Read more Kylian Mbappé vs. Erling Haaland: Sizing up the striker showdown when France faces Norway on Friday