Hey, there! Log in / Register

In 2022, voters could face ballot questions to bring back happy hour, require voter IDs and let Uber and Lyft get their way on how to pay drivers

WGBH reports on the 17 potential 2022 ballot questions that the state Attorney General's office say pass constitutional muster.

The next step for proponents is to collect at least 13,374 valid signatures by June to get their questions placed on the ballot.

The AG's office rejected 13 proposals, including one by failed Senate candidate Shiva Ayyadurai to require extra fancy paper ballots to reduce the fraud he is no longer legally claiming was the reason he lost the 2020 Republican primary. The measure, which would bar all use of machine-based voting, would infringe on the rights of disabled voters who rely on particular types of voting machines to cast their ballots, according to the AG. Plus, its requirement to post all ballots on publicly available servers could lead to ballots being linked to specific voters, a big privacy no.

Details on all the proposals.

Topics: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Predictions:

-No on happy hour because the people who give a (expletive) about having it back don't vote

-No on requiring voter ID because that wasn't a problem until government said it was one

-Yes on Uber and Lyft making the rules because we're all simps for corporations if it saves us a buck

up
Voting closed 29

Especially the last one

up
Voting closed 25

but i guess we’ll see

up
Voting closed 25

Uber and Lyft spent $200 million on the campaign for prop 22 in California. They will do the same thing here. Don't underestimate people's susceptibility to propaganda.

up
Voting closed 26

Or their delusion that big corps have their best interests in mind

up
Voting closed 17

The "bad old days" of happy hours included "Beat the Clock" happy hour at Frankenstein's on Comm Ave where drinks started at 25 cents at 2:00pm and went up a quarter every 15 minutes. That probably should NOT be allowed. On the other hand, if a bar wants to have a short term special on a particular brand, who does it hurt?

I don't think most bars want happy hour back. "Oh good we get to cut our razor-thin margins even thinner to attract people who will never come back here and pay full price."

up
Voting closed 34

Most restaurants don't like happy hour. It brings in deadbeats. The guy looking to save $2 on a bud light isn't the sort to order the bigger menu items. Oh, and they don't tip well, obviously.

Many restaurants in other states feel compelled to offer it just because they fear they'll loose customers who expect it to be offered and don't want to loose the business entirely.

As someone who's concerned about drunk driving, I say keep it banned. There's enough drunks on the road without encouraging people to order more just to get the discount.

up
Voting closed 35

I’m sure most of them aren’t going to be opposed to the idea

up
Voting closed 29

Bars have the option to discount food in the afternoon. And they can make a discount on alcohol if it lasts all day.

up
Voting closed 13

It doesn't always work that well.

up
Voting closed 12

Has there been a ballot initiative to remove the cap on Boston liquor licenses previously?

up
Voting closed 27

There have been legislative efforts, by the city council, all of which have died in the state legislature, which enjoys the anti-Irish legacy of telling Boston who's boss.

up
Voting closed 31

It's not as if they need to care about Boston voters.

And for towns just outside Boston, they'd prefer not to have more competition.

And the license holders in the city certainly want to keep the limits as-is.

up
Voting closed 20

The anti-Irish legacy of telling Boston who's boss is part of the story. But only part of it. Always follow the money. Who wins and who loses if the cap on licenses is lifted? Raising the cap on licenses would cause the price of licenses to drop. The big restaurant companies who own lots of licenses don't like that, and they're better organized with better access to the legislature than the little guy trying to start a restaurant is.

up
Voting closed 26

And who is endorsing what?

up
Voting closed 6

This seems like a "nose of the elephant coming in the door" initiative, and ought to be opposed for reasons that ought to be obvious.

The proposal was initiated by Tatyana Semyrog, Republican nominee for Massachusetts House of Representatives 6th Plymouth District, who lost 40-59 in the general (not a huge margin given the numbers who voted). She's a big "back the blue" type, apparently, and her main political message is all about how the big bad left is constantly oppressing her and bullying people and about to throw them in the gulag, just you wait. Apparently she's also had things to say in the past about the Pulse nightclub shooting, but she puts it down to stress.

Her campaign page is full of gems like this:

Our conservative values and Christian beliefs are being attacked every day, the same beliefs and values of our Founding Fathers. It’s nowhere more evident than what is happening on Beacon Hill. Massachusetts is the cradle of liberty and yet it is high-jacked by a tyrannical party that does not represent the values of the people of this district or state

When she's not running for office to protect our Christian beliefs, or trying to force voters to produce ID, Tatyana is apparently a photographer and inventor of BowBaby.

up
Voting closed 15