Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Massachusetts Question 2, Annual Charter School Expansion Initiative (2016)
Massachusetts Question 2 | |
---|---|
Election date |
|
Topic School choice policy |
|
Status |
|
Type Indirect initiated state statute |
Origin |
Massachusetts Question 2 was on the ballot as an indirect initiated state statute in Massachusetts on November 8, 2016. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to allow the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve up to 12 new charter schools or enrollment expansions in existing charter schools each year, beginning January 1, 2017. |
A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, thereby maintaining the state's existing cap of no more than 120 charter schools statewide. |
Election results
Massachusetts Question 2 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
Yes | 1,243,665 | 38.04% | ||
2,025,840 | 61.96% |
-
- Results are officially certified.
Text of measure
Ballot question
The question was on the ballot as follows:[1]
“ | Question 2. Law proposed by initiative petition. Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?[2] | ” |
Petition name
The petition name was as follows:[3]
“ | An Act to Allow Fair Access to Public Charter Schools[2] | ” |
Ballot summary
The summary was as follows:[4]
“ | This proposed law would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve up to 12 new charter schools or enrollment expansions in existing charter schools each year.
Approvals under this law could expand statewide charter school enrollment by up to 1% of the total statewide public school enrollment each year. New charters and enrollment expansions approved under this law would be exempt from existing limits on the number of charter schools, the number of students enrolled in them, and the amount of local school districts’ spending allocated to them. If the Board received more than 12 applications in a single year from qualified applicants, then the proposed law would require it to give priority to proposed charter schools or enrollment expansions in districts where student performance on statewide assessments is in the bottom 25% of all districts in the previous two years and where demonstrated parent demand for additional public school options is greatest. New charter schools and enrollment expansions approved under this proposed law would be subject to the same approval standards as other charter schools, and to recruitment, retention, and multilingual outreach requirements that currently apply to some charter schools. Schools authorized under this law would be subject to annual performance reviews according to standards established by the Board. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2017. A Yes Vote would allow for up to 12 approvals each year of either new charter schools or expanded enrollments in existing charter schools, but not to extend 1% of the statewide public school enrollment. A No Vote would make no changes in current laws relative to charter schools.[2] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure was as follows:[3]
“ | SECTION 1. Subsection (i) of section 89 of chapter 71 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2014 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:—
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection (i) relative to the number of charter schools allowed to operate in the commonwealth or in any district, the board may approve up to 12 additional commonwealth charters, commonwealth charter amendments to increase authorized enrollment, or a combination thereof per year; provided that the total enrollment authorized by all such approvals in a single fiscal year shall not exceed 1% of the total statewide public school enrollment for such year as determined by the board; provided further, that in the event that the number of qualified applicants in any year exceeds 12, the board shall give priority among such qualified applicants to those seeking to establish or expand enrollment in commonwealth charter schools in districts where overall student performance on the statewide assessment system approved by the board is in the bottom 25% of all districts in the two years preceding the charter application and where the demonstrated parent demand for additional public school options is greatest; provided further that the board shall apply to all such applicants review and approval standards as rigorous as those applied to all other commonwealth charter applicants; provided further that the recruitment and retention and multilingual outreach provisions of paragraph (3) shall apply to any commonwealth charter school authorized under this paragraph; and provided further that any new commonwealth charter schools authorized by this paragraph shall be subject to annual performance reviews according to standards established by the board. Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the issuance of commonwealth charters under paragraph (3). The percentages of net school spending set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not apply to or otherwise operate to limit the board’s authority to approve commonwealth charters or commonwealth charter amendments under this paragraph; provided, however, that such percentages shall continue to apply to commonwealth charters issued otherwise than under this paragraph. Except as provided in this paragraph, all otherwise applicable provisions of this section shall apply to commonwealth charters or amendments approved under this paragraph.[2] |
” |
Support
Great Schools Massachusetts: Yes on 2 led the support for Question 2.[5][6]
Supporters
Coalition
The Yes on 2 website listed the following coalition members:[7]
|
Individuals
- Gov. Charlie Baker (R)[8]
- Sen. Michael Rodrigues (D-Plymouth)[8]
- Rep. Stephen Lynch (D)[9]
- Marc Kenen, executive director of the Massachusetts Charter School Association[10]
- Julia Mejia, an expert panel speaker at the Integrative Learning Center forum and a parent of students attending Brooke Charter Schools Boston[10]
- Marty Walz, former state representative[11]
Organizations
- Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation[8]
- Democrats for Education Reform[8]
- Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance[8]
- Alliance for Business Leadership[12]
Arguments in favor
Eileen O’Connor, a spokesperson for Great Schools Massachusetts, said,[5]
“ | Massachusetts voters are sending a clear message: every child deserves the same opportunity to attend a great public charter school in their community. If the legislature doesn’t take meaningful action by the end of session, we’re confident that the voters will take a stand for the 37,000 families that are stuck on public charter school waiting lists.[2] | ” |
Jeff Bussgang, chairman of the Alliance for Business Leadership, said,[12]
“ | Lifting the cap on public charters is a social justice issue. ... Massachusetts may have one of the best public school systems in the nation, but for too long the achievement gap has prevented our kids from reaching their true potential.[2] | ” |
William Kenen, executive director of the Massachusetts Charter School Association, said the following during a forum on Question 2 at the Integrative Learning Center:[10]
“ |
This referendum question is focused entirely on our urban communities. This is not about suburbs, this is not about rural Western Mass. This is about cities in Massachusetts where children and families are struggling to get basic educational needs met.[2] |
” |
Julia Mejia, a parent of students at Brooke Charter Schools Boston, said the following during a forum on Question 2 at the Integrative Learning Center:[10]
“ |
If the cap doesn’t get lifted that’s going to be less opportunities and resources for families to get out. It would be a devastating blow for those seeking opportunity.[2] |
” |
Sephira Shuttlesworth, regional support director for SABIS Educational Systems, wrote the following:[13]
“ |
But a November ballot initiative to allow more charter public schools to open or expand would go a long way toward providing those families with the educational opportunity they both desire and deserve. [...] A torrent of gold-standard, independent research has found that Massachusetts charter schools are closing the achievement gap between poor and minority kids and their wealthier peers. [...] If Massachusetts voters approve more charter schools this November, it will bring Fred Shuttlesworth's words to life and prove that the desire for equal educational opportunity is indeed a fire you can't put out.[2] |
” |
Marcus Winters, a Boston University School of Education associate professor of curriculum and teaching, wrote the following in BU Today:[14]
“ |
Among the important decisions facing Massachusetts voters at the ballot box in November is whether to allow expansion of charter schools in low-performing (primarily urban) districts that are at or nearing the state’s enrollment cap. The evidence suggests strongly that the state’s students will benefit were voters to pass the referendum.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Save Our Public Schools led the opposition campaign for Question 2.[8][15]
Opponents
The Save our Public Schools campaign website listed opponents for Question 2. The full list can be found here.[16]
Organizations
School committees
Town and City Councils, Boards of Selectmen and Aldermen
Democratic committees
|
Other opponents
- Former Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders[17][18]
- U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D)[19]
- Former governor Michael Dukakis (D)[20]
- Burlington Educators' Association[21]
- Building and Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan District[9]
- Greenfield Town Council appointments and ordinances subcommittee[22]
- William Diehl, executive director of Collaborative for Educational Services[10]
- Barbara Madeloni, President of the Massachusetts Teachers Association[10]
- Paul Schlichtman, Massachusetts Association of School Committees member[11]
Arguments against
Marty Walsh, mayor of Boston, said the following at a public hearing hosted by the Joint Committee on Education:[23]
“ | To put it simply, this proposal does not provide for the substantial charter school growth that the proponents seeks. ... It would instead wreak havoc on our municipal finances.[2] | ” |
Save Our Public Schools released a statement that said,[8]
“ | Every time a new charter school opens or expands, it takes funding away from the public schools in that area. Under this proposal, the number of charter schools in Massachusetts would nearly triple in just 10 years, costing local public school districts more than $1 billion every single year.[2] | ” |
Diana Marcus, president of the Burlington Educators' Association, said,[21]
“ | Allowing 12 additional charter schools per year and allowing the number of Massachusetts charter schools to double in six years, will remove the requirement that charter schools locate in our lowest performing districts, opening up towns like Burlington for lucrative sources of income. Imagine the impacts of loss in funding to our district’s student programs.[2] | ” |
Elizabeth Warren, a U.S. Democratic senator, said the following:[19]
“ |
I will be voting no on Question 2. Many charter schools in Massachusetts are producing extraordinary results for our students, and we should celebrate the hard work of those teachers and spread what's working to other schools, [...] But after hearing more from both sides, I am very concerned about what this specific proposal means for hundreds of thousands of children across our Commonwealth, especially those living in districts with tight budgets where every dime matters. Education is about creating opportunity for all our children, not about leaving many behind.[2] |
” |
Tito Jackson, education committee chairman for the Boston City Council, noted that the amendment might have an impact on funding for existing schools during a panel discussion, saying the following:[24]
“ |
We are talking about taking funding away from existing schools and moving funding to schools that don’t even exist yet [...] It is 12 new commonwealth charter schools each year, every year, anywhere, forever.[2] |
” |
Barbara Madeloni, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, said the following during a forum on Question 2 at the Integrative Learning Center:[10]
“ |
I think a ‘yes’ vote really puts us in the position to profoundly undermine public education…If we were to pass this we would be losing 100 million more each year in perpetuity. That would eventually destabilize public schools. Districts are going to have to start making cuts. Those cuts are real whether it’s art, librarian, music, [or] language programs.[2] |
” |
Alexandra Griffin, a contributing writer for The Williams Record, wrote the following:[25]
“ |
Education in Massachusetts should be a public good, guaranteed to all, guided by public values and accountable to local communities. Lifting the cap on charter schools in Massachusetts opens the door to increased privatization, creating educational institutions governed by the rules of the market, with little obligation to respond to the values or needs of the communities they are in. Stand with the students, teachers, staff, unions and other public school stakeholders and vote no on this ballot initiative. It is a critical move to protect and strengthen Massachusetts public schools.[2] |
” |
Adam Cordio, president of the Fitchburg Education Association, wrote the following:[26]
“ |
I am urging you to vote 'no' on Question 2 because it is bad policy for public education. Charter schools are privately operated and publicly funded. Here in Fitchburg, we send more than $2 million from our school budget to charter schools. None of our locally elected leaders, including the School Committee, has any authority over the operation of the charter schools financed by our tax dollars.[2] |
” |
Media editorials
Support
- The Boston Globe editorial board endorsed a "yes" vote on Question 2:[27]
“ |
Voters have the chance to continue a successful strategy in public education by approving Question 2, which would allow the state to continue expanding public charter schools in the communities that need them most, including Boston. [...] Massachusetts has been a leader in public education for centuries; the commitment to cherish education is even written into the state constitution. In that spirit, the Globe endorses 'yes' on Question 2, in the hope that it will write the next chapter in one of the Commonwealth’s great success stories.[2] |
” |
- The Metrowest Daily News editorial board endorsed a "yes" vote on Question 2:[28]
“ |
Instead, the debate over Question 2, which would allow the expansion of charter schools in low-performing districts where they are capped by state law, has been all about money. What’s best for children has been all but ignored. [...] We support more funding for education, distributed according to a more equitable formula. But we must not sacrifice the state’s neediest children on the altar of district school budgets. We urge a YES vote on Question 2.[2] |
” |
- The Harvard Crimson editorial board wrote the following:[29]
“ |
Our support for Question 2 is grounded in the belief that the 32,000 students on charters waitlists should not have to wait to access great schools with proven records. But a system that leaves this many students wanting better options is a system that needs more wholesale reform. We urge Massachusetts voters to approve Question 2, and then to keep the pressure on lawmakers for faster action to improve all of Massachusetts’ public schools.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Ballotpedia has not identified any editorial board endorsements opposing Question 2. To submit an editorial board endorsement for consideration, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Neutral
- The Daily Free Press wrote the following:[30]
“ |
Education is an inherently complex and polarizing issue. After all, the intelligence and well-being of the next generation is being argued, if education is examined at its core. It is for this reason that The Daily Free Press’s editorial board did not come to a consensus on the best possible vote for Question 2 of the Massachusetts ballot questions.[2] |
” |
Polls
Massachusetts Charter School Expansion | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
Western New England University 10/23/2016-11/2/2016 | 40% | 49% | 10% | +/-4.5 | 470 | ||||||||||||||
Suffolk University/Boston Globe 10/24/2016-10/26/2016 | 45.4% | 45.4% | 8.6% | +/-4.4 | 500 | ||||||||||||||
WBUR/MassInc 9/7/2016 - 9/10/2016 | 41% | 48% | 11% | +/-4.4 | 506 | ||||||||||||||
WBZ/UMass Amherst 9/15/2016 - 9/20/2016 | 49% | 39% | 12% | +/-4.3 | 700 | ||||||||||||||
Suffolk University/Boston Globe 5/2/2016 - 5/5/2016 | 50.0% | 33.0% | 16.0% | +/-4.4 | 500 | ||||||||||||||
Western New England University 4/1/2016 - 4/10/2016 | 51.0% | 26.0% | 23.0% | +/-4.0 | 497 | ||||||||||||||
Mass Inc Polling Group 3/12/2016 - 3/17/2016 | 73.0% | 21.0% | 6.0% | +/-4.9 | 403 | ||||||||||||||
UMass Amherst 2/19/2016 - 2/25/2016 | 51.0% | 23.0% | 26.0% | +/-4.1 | 891 | ||||||||||||||
AVERAGES | 50.05% | 35.55% | 14.08% | +/-4.38 | 558.38 | ||||||||||||||
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. |
Note: The margin of error for the WBZ/UMass Amherst poll was found in a separate CBS article.[31]
Note: The margin of error for the Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll was found in a separate article.[32]
Campaign finance
Five committees registered in support of the measure. Together they reported over $25.7 million in contributions. One committee registered in opposition to the measure—Save Our Public Schools. It reported over $17.2 million in contributions.[33]
Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Support | $24,875,209.57 | $916,100.78 | $25,791,310.35 | $24,746,381.93 | $25,662,482.71 |
Oppose | $15,407,239.54 | $1,820,950.07 | $17,228,189.61 | $15,188,667.05 | $17,009,617.12 |
Total | $40,282,449.11 | $2,737,050.85 | $42,309,399.96 | $39,935,048.98 | $42,672,099.83 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the ballot measure.[33]
Committees in support of Question 2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
Great Schools Massachusetts | $21,691,325.75 | $914,200.78 | $22,605,526.53 | $21,586,407.85 | $22,500,608.63 |
Campaign for Fair Access to Quality Public Schools | $1,751,576.82 | $1,900.00 | $1,753,476.82 | $1,727,667.08 | $1,729,567.08 |
Advancing Obama's Legacy on Charter Schools Ballot Committee | $722,040.00 | $0.00 | $722,040.00 | $722,040.00 | $722,040.00 |
Yes on Two | $710,100.00 | $0.00 | $710,100.00 | $710,100.00 | $710,100.00 |
Expanding Educational Opportunities | $167.00 | $0.00 | $167.00 | $167.00 | $167.00 |
Total | $24,875,209.57 | $916,100.78 | $25,791,310.35 | $24,746,381.93 | $25,662,482.71 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of the ballot measure.[33]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
Families For Excellent Schools Advocacy, Inc. | $16,529,500.00 | $849,689.74 | $17,379,189.74 |
Jim Walton | $1,125,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,125,000.00 |
Strong Economy For Growth, Inc. | $910,000.00 | $0.00 | $910,000.00 |
Alice Walton | $710,000.00 | $0.00 | $710,000.00 |
Michael Bloomberg | $490,000.00 | $0.00 | $490,000.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the ballot measure.[33]
Committees in opposition to Question 2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
Save Our Public Schools | $15,407,239.54 | $1,820,950.07 | $17,228,189.61 | $15,188,667.05 | $17,009,617.12 |
Total | $15,407,239.54 | $1,820,950.07 | $17,228,189.61 | $15,188,667.05 | $17,009,617.12 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in opposition to the ballot measure.[33]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
Massachusetts Teachers Association | $6,758,099.00 | $1,689,203.00 | $8,447,302.00 |
National Education Association Ballot Measure/Legislative Crisis Fund | $3,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $3,000,000.00 |
National Education Association | $2,400,000.00 | $0.00 | $2,400,000.00 |
American Federation of Teachers | $2,079,823.00 | $45,025.00 | $2,124,848.00 |
AFT Massachusetts, AFL-CIO | $617,949.69 | $0.00 | $617,949.69 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Path to the ballot
An indirect initiated state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends state statute. There are nine (9) states that allow citizens to initiate indirect state statutes.
While a direct initiative is placed on the ballot once supporters file the required number of valid signatures, an indirect initiative is first presented to the state legislature. Legislators have a certain number of days, depending on the state, to adopt the initiative into law. Should legislators take no action or reject the initiative, the initiative is put on the ballot for voters to decide.
In Massachusetts, the number of signatures required for an indirect initiated state statute is equal to 3% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Massachusetts also has a distribution requirement that requires no more than 25% of the certified signatures on any petition can come from a single county.
The state Legislature has until the first Wednesday of May in the election year to pass the statute. If the legislature does not pass the proposed statute, proponents must collect a second round of signatures equal to 0.5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. The Legislature also has the power to place an alternative measure alongside the proposed statute via a simple majority vote of the state legislature.
A simple majority vote is required for voter approval. However, the number of affirmative votes cast for the measure must be greater than 30% of the votes cast in the election.
Supporters were required to submit at least 64,750 valid signatures by December 2, 2015. A total of 70,716 signatures were submitted to the secretary of state's office and certified in mid-December 2015. The proposal was subsequently referred to the Legislature. The deadline for the Legislature to take action on the initiative was May 3, 2016.[34][35]
The Legislature did not enact the initiative. To qualify it for the November 2016 election ballot, petitioners needed to collect an additional 10,792 signatures and submit them to local clerks by approximately June 22, 2016. The petitions then had to be submitted to the state by the legal deadline of July 6, 2016.[36]
Supporters submitted 30,200 signatures to local clerks on June 22, 2016.[37] Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin approved the signatures on July 6, 2016, certifying Question 2 for the November 8, 2016, ballot.[38]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired J.E.F. Associates to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $414,000 was spent to collect the 64,750 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $6.39.[39]
See also
View other measures certified for the 2016 ballot across the U.S. and in Massachusetts.
Explore Massachusetts's ballot measure history, including citizen-initiated ballot measures.
Understand how measures are placed on the ballot and the rules that apply.
Footnotes
- ↑ MassLive.com, "Here are your Mass. ballot questions for Nov. 2016: Charter schools, marijuana, farm animal cruelty, and 2nd slot parlor," July 11, 2016
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>
tag; no text was provided for refs namedtext
- ↑ Mass.gov, "15-31 summary," accessed December 4, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 The Bay State Banner, "Great Schools Massachusetts collects 100k signatures in support of ballot question to lift the cap on public charter schools," October 28, 2015
- ↑ Yes on 2, "Home," accessed November 7, 2016
- ↑ Yes on 2, "Coalition," accessed November 7, 2016
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 Herald News, "Sen. Rodrigues backs ballot question adding more charter schools to state," July 17, 2016
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Telegram.com, "Across Massachusetts, sides dig in for charter school battle," September 27, 2016
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Massachusetts Daily Collegian, "Community forum debates Question 2," October 19, 2016
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Enterprise News, "Charter school cap debated in Weston forum," October 26, 2016
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 MassLive.com, "Progressive business group backs charter school expansion," July 21, 2016
- ↑ Lowell Sun, "Question 2: Educational civil rights for poor, minorities," October 18, 2016
- ↑ BU Today, "POV: Massachusetts Voters Should Vote Yes on Question 2," October 26, 2016
- ↑ Save Our Public Schools, "Home," accessed October 19, 2016
- ↑ Save Our Public Schools, "Save Our Public Schools Endorsements as of October 27, 2016," October 27, 2016
- ↑ CBS Local, "Bernie Sanders Weighs In On Mass. Charter School Ballot Question," November 2, 2016
- ↑ Boston.com, "Bernie Sanders jumps into Massachusetts’s charter school fight, opposes Question 2," November 2, 2016
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 MassLive, "Sen. Elizabeth Warren opposing Question 2 on charter schools," September 27, 2016
- ↑ Boston Blobe, "Both sides make final push on Question 2," November 5, 2016
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 Daily Times Chronicle, "BEA opposes charter school ballot question," August 15, 2016
- ↑ The Recorder, "Ordinance subcommittee backs anti-charter school resolution," October 10, 2016
- ↑ New Boston Post, "Charter cap, Common Core weighed by lawmakers," March 7, 2016
- ↑ The Harvard Crimson, "Panelists Spar Over Mass. Charter School Ballot Measure," September 28, 2016
- ↑ The Williams Record, "Voting ‘No’ on Question 2: Keeping the cap on charter schools in Massachusetts," October 19, 2016
- ↑ Sentinel & Enterprise, "FEA president urges 'no' vote on Question 2," November 3, 2016
- ↑ The Boston Globe, "Vote ‘yes’ on Question 2," October 30, 2016
- ↑ The Metrowest Daily News, "Editorial: Raise the cap on charter schools," October 15, 2016
- ↑ Harvard Crimson, "Vote Yes on Question 2," November 2, 2016
- ↑ The Daily Free Press, "Question 2 ENDORSEMENT: Charter schools are detrimental to public school systems, but can provide hope," October 26, 2016
- ↑ CBS Boston, "WBZ-UMass Poll: Voters Favor Legal Recreational Marijuana, But Have Reservations," September 28, 2016
- ↑ Boston Globe, "Voters split on charter schools, favor legal pot," October 27, 2016
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, "Search," accessed March 3, 2025
- ↑ The Millbury Sutton Chronicle, "Major signature hurdle cleared by seven ballot question campaigns," accessed December 23, 2015
- ↑ The Boston Herald, "Ballot initiative supporters face key deadline," November 29, 2015
- ↑ Sentinel & Enterprise, "New signature deadline in Mass. for ballot question backers," May 4, 2016
- ↑ MassLive.com, "Questions on marijuana, education, farm animals likely to make November ballot," June 22, 2016
- ↑ Masslive.com, "4 statewide questions make 2016 Massachusetts ballot," July 6, 2016
- ↑ Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, "95424 Great Schools Massachusetts," accessed September 26, 2016
![]() |
State of Massachusetts Boston (capital) |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |