Ballot Questions to look out for in Massachusetts
By Izzy Bush ‘21
Massachusetts is in the midst of an exciting time in its history, not only because the Sox won the World Series, but because of the highly contentious questions to be presented on the ballot this year.
The first question concerns the number of patients that can be assigned to a nurse in a hospital at a given time. The final outcome of the vote was ‘no’, but what does that mean? A vote ‘ye’s would support legislation that limits the amount of patients that a nurse can care for to three at a time while a vote ‘no’ would leave this assessment up to competitive markets. So what are the facts? Currently, nurses in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in Massachusetts are limited to two patients at a time because of the high mortality risks involved. The MA Nurses Labor Association was hoping to extend this restriction because they feel they are unable to adequately care for all their patients and thus the quality of patient care is reduced. Most supporters of the initiative are in favor because they are or know personally a nurse that is overwhelmed by patient load and feels unable to maintain the workload demanded of them. Had the outcome of the vote been “yes”, estimates state that hospitals across Massachusetts would have to hire approximately 3,101 additional nurses for a statewide cost of $949 million per year. Results of a similar patient limit passed in California were inconclusive, as different data sets disagree as to whether or not increased nursing actually improved patient outcomes. The average salary for a nurse in Massachusetts is around $85,000 annually, whereas a nurse’s aide can perform many of the same functions and have an average salary of $27,000 annually. Opponents of the ballot initiative argued that nurse’s aides would be a more efficient solution to the issue of understaffing in hospitals.
On the other hand, a vote yes for Question 2 is less controversial, but has much wider national implications and is far more complex. It goes back to the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United v. FEC which affirmed that corporations, like people are protected under the First Amendment. The decision overturned the ruling of the district courts and the congressional Tillman Act and the Federal Election Campaign Acts, which restricted corporations’ ability to fund federal campaigns. The court ruled that under protection of freedom of expression, corporations have the right to back their political opinions with funds, stating “no sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations” 1 . Dissenters of the majority opinion have suggested that allowing corporations to support electoral candidates is antithetical to democracy as it makes candidates more influenced by corporations than are by individual voters. Still, the case had even wider implications. Hobby Lobby, a craft store conglomerate, argued in 2014’s in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, that it did not want to supply birth control under its employee healthcare plan as the Affordable Care Act ordained because birth control was against the corporation’s religious beliefs. The court affirmed that in light of the Citizens United ruling, the ACA has no right to infringe on Hobby Lobby’s expression of religious belief. So how does Question 2 tie into this controversy? It is an initiative for new laws that would limit the Citizens United decision by arguing that constitutionally, corporations are not allotted the same rights as individuals and thus, allowing for restrictions on the amount of funds corporations can supply on party candidates. More specifically, the initiative creates a commission of 15 unpaid citizens that would push for amendments to the constitution that negate the Citizens United decision. Opponents of the initiative argue that companies are guaranteed the expression of political opinion in the same way as individuals and that it would not make sense in a competitive market to say that companies cannot support their own interests on their own dime. Proponents argue that allowing corporations to collect massive amounts of money from corporations makes the tide of democracy amenable with the will of corporations. What this vote ‘yes’ on this citizens commission will mean for Massachusetts and the nation is still yet to be seen, and one can hardly be sure that this committee will have any effect at all. What is certain is that people in Massachusetts feel as though their democratic voice has been belittled and they have every intention of fighting to raise it once more.
Sources Cited
Election guide: A primer on Question 1 on nurse staffing - The Boston Globe. (2018). Dunbar, John. (2012). The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters | Center for Public Integrity.
Nurse Staffing Ratio Law | Debating the merits of a nurse-staffing ratio law. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.nursinglicensure.org/articles/nurse-staffing-ratios.html.
https://www.nursinglicensure.org/articles/nurse-staffing-ratios.html
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/nursing-aide/salary