GREENFIELD — State-level policy proposals were brought closer to home for locals this week, with state Rep. Paul Mark and Faculty Emeritus Stewart “Buz” Eisenberg leading a ballot question information session at Greenfield Community College.
During the session, the speakers briefly broke down each question set to appear on the Nov. 8 state election ballot. The event was sponsored and hosted by the GCC Student Senate and library, while the League of Women Voters of Franklin County helped register voters and provide attendees with information.
Mark, who is also a professor at GCC, led the panel, explaining what each ballot question entails “in a neutral manner, as much as possible.” He also provided rationale commonly presented by advocates and opponents of each idea. Mark and Eisenberg fielded questions following each summary.
Student Peter Pavone, who introduced both speakers, said the forum’s purpose was to help people “dissect how they’re going to vote.”
“We are watching our democracy melt into an authoritarian form of government,” Eisenberg argued, emphasizing the election’s significance of the election. “What are we going to do about it? I’m not going to ask you to take up arms. I want you to register to vote.”
Mark, who is running to represent the Berkshire, Hampden, Franklin and Hampshire District in the Senate, went down the list of questions in numerical order. Question 1, if passed, “would establish an additional 4% state income tax on that portion of annual taxable income in excess of $1 million,” according to the Massachusetts secretary of state’s website.
“The choice you’re going to make on Question 1 in November is, ‘Do I want to make an amendment to the Constitution or not?’” Mark noted.
Advocates of Question 1, Mark said, argue that such an amendment would make taxation “more progressive, more fair to everyone.” Eisenberg, who endorsed the amendment, added that this tax money would go toward public education, affordable college and maintenance of transportation infrastructure.
“A flat tax is seen as more fair” to opponents of the amendment, however, according to Mark. He added that some opponents believe big business owners would move out of Massachusetts to a state with lower taxes as a result, taking their businesses with them and harming Massachusetts’ economy.
Question 2, if passed, “would direct the commissioner of the Massachusetts Division of Insurance to approve or disapprove the rates of dental benefit plans and would require that a dental insurance carrier meet an annual aggregate medical loss ratio for its covered dental benefit plans of 83%,” according to the state website.
“If this ballot question were to pass, it would say that 83% of the insurance collected would have to go toward actual dental insurance practices,” Mark explained, reasoning that this may ensure better patient care.
Opponents, however, say the proposal might spike dental rates up to 38% and would make dentists nervous to practice in Massachusetts, according to Mark. Eisenberg, who said he would vote a “very strong yes” on Question 2, denounced opposing projections as baseless.
“Insurance premiums are going to go down an estimated 22% in the first two years,” he said, adding that the idea has a 93% approval rating among dentists surveyed.
Question 3 “would increase the statewide limits on the combined number of licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption (including licenses for ‘all alcoholic beverages’ and for ‘wines and malt beverages’) that any one retailer could own or control: from nine to 12 licenses in 2023; to 15 licenses in 2027; and to 18 licenses in 2031,” according to the state website.
“Over the coming years, it would double the amount of liquor licenses that any company is able to own,” Mark explained.
If enacted, the law would, however, cap retailers to a maximum of seven licenses specifically for “all alcoholic beverages” unless a retailer currently holds more than seven such licenses.
Advocates argue that instituting a cap would function “to avoid a monopoly and to stop unfair competition,” according to Mark. Meanwhile, the statewide limits would allow new businesses to enter the market, he added.
Mark acknowledged opposing viewpoints that denounce the impact this law might have on revenue for retailers.
Question 4 would continue to “allow Massachusetts residents who cannot provide proof of lawful presence in the United States to obtain a driver’s license or permit if they meet the other requirements for doing so,” according to the state website. Mark says this law has correlated to safer driving and a higher likelihood of drivers being insured. Eisenberg, a lawyer, cited instances in which he won cases representing undocumented drivers.
“I had 20 for 20 who were arrested for not having a license,” Eisenberg said, noting that determinations in favor of the undocumented drivers were reached due to rationale that his clients were only driving because there was no reasonable alternative means of transportation.
“These are people who just want to work and be good citizens even though they’re not citizens,” he said of undocumented immigrants.
Opponents of this law are nervous that undocumented people might be able to vote easier with such access to a driver’s license, according to Mark. Some also feel that it’s unfair to those who come to country legally, he added.
This year’s election takes place on Tuesday, Nov. 8.
Reach Julian Mendoza at 413-772-0261, ext. 261 or jmendoza@recorder.com.
An earlier version of this article inaccurately reflected the role of the League of Women Voters of Franklin County in relation to the event. The League of Women Voters provided information to residents and helped with voter registration. The event was sponsored and hosted by the GCC Student Senate and library.