Episode 219: SCOTUS Scaries
6/30/2022-- This week on The Horse Race, Jenn and Steve begin by unpacking the whirlwind of a news week that just was. Before diving into national news, a statewide race changed drastically this week when state senator and gubernatorial candidate Sonia Chang-Diaz dropped out of the race. She told reporters there was no reasonable path to victory, and she'll instead turn her focus to supporting down-ballot candidates with similar progressive views. Chang-Diaz's withdrawal makes Maura Healey the sole standing Democratic candidate for Governor.
The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, prompting Governor Baker to immediately sign an executive order protecting access to reproductive health care services in the state. The order would protect providers who perform these services for out-of-state patients seeking the procedures in Massachusetts. Planned Parenthood has already reported an uptick in demand for services here in Massachusetts from people coming out of state.
Finally, reporter Sam Gross of The Boston Globe stops by to talk to Steve about a law that will allow undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses in Massachusetts. The legislature passed it into law earlier this month, and then voted to override Gov. Baker’s veto. Now, opponents of the new law have formed a ballot question committee and are collecting signatures to try to put the issue before voters in the fall.
——
This episode of The Horse Race was brought to you by Benchmark Strategies [www.benchmark-strategies.com] Benchmark is setting a new standard as Boston's fastest-growing public affairs consulting firm. To know more, connect with Benchmark on Twitter @benchmarkBoston.
——
Full show transcript:
Jennifer Smith: [00:00:25] Today on The Horse Race, we take a look at what recent Supreme Court rulings mean for Massachusetts residents. Then we're talking about the future of the Work and Family Mobility Act. It's Thursday, June 30th. [00:00:36][11.3]
Steve Koczela: [00:00:54] Welcome back to The Horse Race, your weekly look at politics, policy and elections in Massachusetts. I'm Steve Koczela here this week with Jennifer Smith. Lisa Kashinsky is off this week. And I think it probably goes without saying, this has been a huge week in news. [00:01:07][13.1]
Jennifer Smith: [00:01:08] I just have a deep amount of admiration and sympathy for anyone who manages to turn off social media or turn off the news or anything for any amount of time. But now these days, if you're away for maybe 2 minutes, you have to come back, look at your phone and say, okay, it's fine. Let me just recalibrate my entire assessment of the structure of the country today. [00:01:33][25.1]
Steve Koczela: [00:01:33] Country, world. You know, has NATO expanded, has there been like, you know, massively controversial, you know, Supreme Court rulings? What did we learn about the insurrection? And that's just like, you know, 2 hours worth of news. So crazy week as always. Coming back here to Massachusetts, though. One thing that happened this past week was that one, the last actually Democratic challenger for governor to Maura Healey, dropped out. State Senator Sonia Chang-Díaz is now no longer running for governor. Jenn, tell us why. [00:02:05][31.5]
Jennifer Smith: [00:02:06] So in her annou ncement, Sonia Chang-Díaz told reporters basically that there was no reasonable path for victory, that she could see for making the numbers work, basically. So she was going to shift her focus to supporting down ballot candidates who have kind of similar progressive ideas. And the thing that she's saying here really has to resonate with what we've been talking about for pretty much this entire campaign cycle, which is that Sonia Chang-Díaz was really kind of the underdog from the start, especially compared to Maura Healey, even though technically she's the last non-Healey challenger standing on the Democratic side in the money game and name recognition polling generally we can get into, you know, Healey was just kind of dominant throughout and it was really looking like we were hitting this point in the race. We're sure Sonia Chang-Díaz made it out of the Democratic convention with enough support to make the ballot. But where could she possibly go from there? There aren't enough undecided voters that could have closed the margin that she was looking at up against Healey. [00:03:08][62.3]
Steve Koczela: [00:03:09] Yeah. And she pointed to and her people pointed to things that I think are legitimate, which is the money gap was vast. And, you know, Attorney General Maura Healey came into the race already with a pile of money and was raising money by the boatload. You know, that certainly was one area where catching up or, you know, not even catching up on the money raised, but closing the gap just on votes when you're that far behind in the money race is obviously a real challenge and then polling too you know she was down depending on the poll that you're looking at by 30 or so points, you know, that kind of range. So definitely a challenge there did get out of the convention. But of course, as you know, we discussed a few weeks ago some of the delegates there, you know, wanted to see a competitive race. And that was part of the reason why they voted for her. And also, it's just, you know, it's not a representative group of voters statewide. So lots of challenges there. The thing that really, kind of the question that it brings to me, though, is now we've got one Democrat basically left running for governor. This is a really good chance for Democrats to win. And the race is not competitive, not even like not even symbolically competitive. [00:04:20][71.3]
Jennifer Smith: [00:04:21] Our our beloved co-host, Lisa Kashinsky, has done a lot of good reporting on kind of the particular dynamics of the race itself, where we've talked before and as you just mentioned, there were plenty of people who were kind of supporting Sonia Chang-Díaz on on principle, saying, like, we want people in a race to kind of challenge and build on each other's ideas. But kind of looking back at the polling, people thought that Maura Healey was not only kind of in generic sense is a better person to manage whatever broad category the economy is or health care is or taxes are or climate change or anything like that. But also thought she just had a better chance of winning. So you had this kind of mixed set of incentives, which is, do we want a competitive primary, but do we also want to pick the person that we think has the best chance in November? And Steve, I would love to get your perspective on this because we've touched on it at varying points, but the polling really looked good for the Democrats no matter who the Democrat was because they're running against Geoff Diehl, most likely if he makes it out of his own primary on the Republican side. So how were you watching the interaction between the idea that Maura Healey was just objectively more likely to win in the general and what seems like the kind of on the ground reality? That maybe whatever Democrat made it out of the primary would also probably be fine in the general. [00:05:49][87.9]
Steve Koczela: [00:05:50] I think you can look at them together in the sense that it probably is true that Maura Healey would win by more. You know, these things you obviously can't perfectly predict because you don't know how the race would change. You don't know like if there'd be a scandal or something like that. But just based on what voters were telling us they wanted, it seemed like a candidate like Maura Healey would be would earn a higher percentage of support. So, for instance, you know, we did polling a few months back and found a lot of Democratic primary voters want somebody pretty moderate or they want somebody about like Charlie Baker, you know, the Republican outgoing governor, Democratic primary voters. That's what they wanted. So then when they look out, you know, at the candidates, then Maura Healey kind of fits that bill a bit better where Sonia Chang-Díaz is perhaps more in line with the left or liberal wing of the party. But perhaps, you know, when you zoom out to the general electorate is no longer kind of in line with as many of the voters as Maura Healey. It is true that when you did one, we've done general election polling and others have too, that any that either of those Democrats would beat either of the Republicans that are in the race at this point. So it seems like Democrats kind of had a big edge in that race anyway. You know, I always hesitate to say had it in the bag because that's you know, you just never know what could happen. But it just seems like a candidate that's more moderate is what voters are after in this case. [00:07:15][84.8]
Jennifer Smith: [00:07:15] And I think you're right to point out that especially when we're Massachusetts, so much of our work ends up happening in the primary and not in the general election. We often have a really big field of Democrats and then little to no kind of Republican competitor on the other side that all of the Democrats, aside from Healey now having dropped out before the primary, does pose a kind of interesting question because as I mentioned, one of the reasons to have a lot of people running in a primary is they do kind of push and pull each other toward varying policy positions. So now we are down, Ben Downing, we are down Sonia Chang-Díaz, we are down. Danielle Allen. So even Democrats who weren't worried, for instance, that Maura Healey was going to be wildly out of step with their priorities, don't now have any leverage inside the primary to push her on any specific issues? [00:08:09][53.3]
Steve Koczela: [00:08:10] Yeah, absolutely. And on a deeper level, too, I think it's just indicative of one of the big long-term challenges in Massachusetts politics, which is, you know, people by and large like a lot of the policy outcomes, but when it comes to competitiveness, there's just nothing good that can be said about what's going on in Massachusetts. You know, legislatively, we have very uncompetitive elections. We've got, you know, an open governor's seat and we have one basically one Democrat left in the race. So just not a lot of competition. Not a lot in terms of, you know, kind of the underpinning of democracy, which is you get to pick which candidate's going to represent you as opposed to, you know, everybody else drops out before you even get to vote, which is kind of what we're looking at at this point. [00:08:50][40.4]
Jennifer Smith: [00:08:51] Well, speaking of the underpinnings of democracy, Steve, what are we doing here today? [00:08:55][4.2]
Steve Koczela: [00:08:56] We're going to be taking a look at the flurry of Supreme Court rulings that have come down in the last week or so and what they mean for Massachusetts. And then we'll chat with Boston Globe reporter Samantha Gross about new efforts to preserve a law that would allow undocumented residents to apply for driver's license. Shall we do it? [00:09:14][17.2]
Jennifer Smith: [00:09:14] Let's get into it. [00:09:15][0.8]
Steve Koczela: [00:09:21] On Friday, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, a landmark decision that protected abortion access nationally for the last five decades. The decision will have an impact across the country, including right here in Massachusetts. Jenn, since Friday, what is the conversation in Massachusetts been like surrounding the implications of the decision? [00:09:39][17.5]
Jennifer Smith: [00:09:40] So it's a tricky situation here in Massachusetts, as anyone who has been out around the Common might know over the past week or so, that there have been big protests. Our federal delegation, our local delegation are all furious about this, pointing very directly at the kind of drastic rightward turn that the court has taken, kind of booting precedent out the door on a number of issues like this. And Massachusetts residents very much do support abortion rights. That's been consistently true in the polling. So in Massachusetts, we both support access to abortion and also have very strong laws to protect it already. But also, as we've talked about many times on the show, a lot of work has gone into making sure that people in Massachusetts would be covered if Roe fell. So there's still more to do here. But a lot of the discussion has actually turned to the question, what states who are about to become destinations for access to abortions actually do? And can they protect the people who need that care and travel to get here, but also the providers here in Massachusetts from being targeted by states who now will have very, very restrictive laws. [00:10:49][69.5]
Steve Koczela: [00:10:50] Yeah, just taking a quick look at public opinion. UMass Lowell just asked this question last week and found 62% of Massachusetts residents said abortion should definitely be legal in every state in the United States. 18% said probably. And then if you just ask in Massachusetts, the numbers are even higher than that. Nationally, the polling has basically shown that majorities think that the Supreme Court was wrong on this. And there's a whole bunch of structural reasons, I think, why we ended up here. But what does it mean immediately for Massachusetts on the issues, Jenn, that you just touched on, which is that we're going to have some states now where people can't get abortions and those who still need them are going to have to go elsewhere. And Massachusetts is one of the places that they're likely to end up. So what does that actually mean for us here? [00:11:36][45.6]
Jennifer Smith: [00:11:37] So there have been a few developments over the week to remind people that there are existing protections here in Massachusetts if you're a Massachusetts resident looking to access abortions. But Governor Baker signed an executive order and there is similar legislative language in process right now that's essentially saying Massachusetts is not going to be helping other states enforce their laws here. We're not going to extradite people to other states if what they're being accused of isn't, in fact illegal in Massachusetts, like providing abortions. We're not going to give state assistance for prosecutions for anything like that. So basically the thing that leaders of Massachusetts have been trying to do is make it very clear that if it's legal in Massachusetts, it's going to be protected by the state of Massachusetts. So this is probably going to lead to a decent amount of legal in-fighting in the near future as states basically try and extend their reach, for instance, from Texas. If someone left Texas and ended up in Massachusetts rather than Colorado, for instance, and the state of Texas said, you're not allowed to provide an abortion at all, even if you're in Massachusetts. The state is now working to make sure that the abortion clinic in Massachusetts is not being held to that Texas law. So there's a lot of kind of very complex maneuvering that is sort of boiling down to come at us we're not going to help you. [00:13:04][87.0]
Steve Koczela: [00:13:05] Yeah, definitely. It seems like that's kind of the spirit of a lot of the what blue state governors are saying and what others are saying is, is just like this is going to continue to happen here and, you know, basically inviting, you know, whatever comes next, I think, or bracing for whatever comes next, perhaps. [00:13:23][17.7]
Jennifer Smith: [00:13:24] And there is an interesting element as well where Governor Charlie Baker, in signing this executive order, was also talking about it not just as a kind of essential reproductive justice question, but that we are in this period of time where the political stances of varying states can now have pretty serious economic impact. So Governor Baker was saying this could actually bring business to Massachusetts, which might sound like a sort of odd argument to be to be making at this time. But it makes some sense. There have been kerfuffles across the country where businesses chose either to do or not to do work in states where, for instance, there were major voter disenfranchisement efforts or state persecution of LGBTQ people. So the thinking is basically, if Massachusetts is in line with general held principles on this, it may actually attract companies who want to be in solidarity for a variety of reasons, either just in principle or because they want to make sure their employees have access to this health care. So there are a few different lines of argument being offered at the same time on why protecting abortion access in Massachusetts is kind of essential. [00:14:31][66.7]
Steve Koczela: [00:14:32] And it's one of those moments following along those lines where you wish that we had more housing available, better transit, you know, the other infrastructure that companies might be looking at when they were thinking of perhaps where to locate. But getting back to it, you know what it would mean if we do have an influx of patients and the things that the health care system will face and that the legal system could potentially face. One of the big questions, of course, is funding. How is Massachusetts setting itself up in terms of funding for, you know, what these changes might entail? [00:15:02][30.2]
Jennifer Smith: [00:15:03] So going back to the leaked draft, because as folks know, we've kind of known this was coming for a while, we saw a version of the opinion which again, was unprecedented. But what isn't these days that was basically indicating this is all going to follow the court is going to overturn Roe. So in anticipation of this possibility, Massachusetts lawmakers had already carved out about $2 million for abortion care in anticipation. And that would be going to groups who would be targeting, you know, getting people access, making sure that people knew what resources were available, and then being able to continue covering the processes. So there is that $2 million in the budget this year that looks pretty solid. It just does raise the question of what the kind of ongoing, continuous maintenance is going to need to be as more and more trigger laws snap into place across the states, if Massachusetts and other states like it end up needing to continue to be destinations for accessing this care. So at the moment, there is money in place, but it's going to need to be an ongoing discussion. [00:16:10][66.5]
Steve Koczela: [00:16:11] Yeah, lots of upheaval, for sure. And speaking of upheaval, in another 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court also struck down a New York law dealing with concealed carry weapons. Jenn, what was at stake there and what's the new landscape look like? [00:16:23][12.3]
Jennifer Smith: [00:16:24] So New York had one of the strictest kind of systems in the country with regard to whether or not you could get a license to carry a handgun, basically in a concealed fashion. And one of the ways in which you might not be allowed to is if you didn't have a proper purpose for carrying it. Basically, the idea was just because you generally wanted to be able to defend yourself with a loaded firearm didn't mean that you should be able to do that wherever you wanted. And so that was the rule in New York. There are similar laws in other states, including Massachusetts. And the Supreme Court did decide, as noted in a 6-3 ruling, that this was an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms. So they just said that language is unacceptable and they did allow for some possibilities in which there could be restrictions, not really on why you might be able to access a handgun, but where you might be able to carry it. So what you're seeing now is states kind of really scrambling to either look at their existing laws and say, are these in line with the with the restrictions that the court seems to be okay with? Or do we need to create an entirely new set of rules that would not immediately be struck down the first time someone sued under this new ruling? [00:17:44][79.8]
Steve Koczela: [00:17:44] Yeah, this is another one where the court seems to be moving in the opposite direction, as I guess we'd say, the rest of society. It came, of course, in the same day that the Senate voted on a new set of restrictions on firearm purchases. But then, of course, there were a couple more, too, where the court seemed to be moving in a much more conservative direction. [00:18:00][16.1]
Jennifer Smith: [00:18:02] It really has been a pretty startling, you know, not surprising, but startling pivot. So there have been a series of decisions that have also been eroding, kind of the separation of church and state with taxpayer money now being able to go to religious schools in Maine. The court also found for a football coach who was participating in and leading Christian prayer after football games on the field with players in Washington. So both of those things are now allowed under the Supreme Court's rulings. And just this morning, actually, there was a 5-4 court split where Neil Gorsuch joined with the liberals, but the court still ruled back native tribal sovereignty in a pretty serious way, actually breaking from very recent precedent, saying essentially that, you know, native tribes could exercise pretty much exclusive sovereignty over their own lands. Now, the court is saying that states also have the ability to enforce a certain number of laws in those lands as well. So there's a lot of implications, not just nationally, but for protected tribal land here in New England as well. [00:19:09][67.7]
Steve Koczela: [00:19:11] The whole thing to me seems like an illustration of one of the main flaws in our democracy, which is that some voters hold way more power than their numbers would suggest they should and other voters hold way less power than their numbers suggest that they should. You know, we see that I think the issue that gets discussed the most often is the Electoral College. Perhaps second is the filibuster. But it really extends, I think, beyond that and what's happening at the Supreme Court right now is the end result of a lot of that, in my view. So, you know, you take the Senate, for instance, and they, of course, have to confirm or in the case of Obama's nominee, not confirm or even vote on a Supreme Court nominee. And it goes beyond the filibuster. You know, the filibuster, getting rid of the filibuster may get us to where a 51 vote, you know, majority would be enough, but even that would give way more power to small states than is, I think, proportional to the number of people who live there. You've got some states with tens of millions of people and other states with hundreds of thousands of people. And they are they have the same power, basically, to influence the outcome of what happens in the Senate. You know, then you look over at the presidency and you can basically see the same thing where with because of the Electoral College, we've had just one Republican president who won a majority since 1988 and that was that was George W. Bush and his reelection campaign, where incumbents have an advantage anyway. You know, you look at Congress and, you know, that absurd gerrymandering process that we just went through. And it's easy to question whether or not that's representative. So I think it all kind of adds up to a question of is the federal government even capable at this point of responding to popular will? [00:20:57][106.4]
Jennifer Smith: [00:20:58] I love that you say that because you literally asked people that in a poll. Do they think it is? [00:21:02][4.2]
Steve Koczela: [00:21:04] Well, we asked the question we asked was, how much confidence do we do you have in the federal government's ability to respond to the needs of the American people? In Massachusetts, 8% say they have a lot of confidence, 29% say some, everybody else has less than that. So I think that the short answer is no, they don't. UMass Lowell asked a similar question in their poll and also found very low confidence. You know, it just it's not a stable it's not a stable system. That's not a stable way to to run things. We also asked about some possible changes. You know, we asked about changing the Electoral College and electing the president based on popular vote here in Massachusetts. Support for that is 67% term limits for Supreme Court justices. We found 72%. That one actually had bipartisan support. Interestingly, the other ones had a bit lower than that. We asked also about eliminating the filibuster. That was about half and half packing the court. That was about half and half. And then just basically getting rid of the Senate or bypassing it. That one was the least popular with only 35% support. [00:22:08][64.1]
Jennifer Smith: [00:22:09] And all of these, of course, are very contingent on whether or not the people who have already been elected and will be elected soon feel like taking on any of these possible options. So there really is a continuation of that kind of inherent irony, which is that what do you do if a body is not in fact responsive to the popular will? Does it matter if most people would like to see a particular set of outcomes when the folks in charge of actually enacting those outcomes are also not representative of most people in the United States? [00:22:41][31.9]
Steve Koczela: [00:22:41] And that's, I think, where the threat to stability comes in, because at some point the risk is that the majority stops being willing to participate, and that in that system, you know, the system which gives vastly disproportionate power to people of whom there are fewer you know, we there are things you get out of that, you get stability, you get economic progress. You get all of the good things that come with American society and being American. But, you know, the impacts of minority rule, I think are starting to pile up. And that's where I do worry a bit just about political stability overall. [00:23:13][32.0]
Jennifer Smith: [00:23:14] But I think that's probably where we have to leave it for today. As we said up top, we assume that in the next 2 hours everything is going to change even more. So we hope you all have a peaceful morning and things don't change too much since you've heard this. [00:23:30][15.8]
Steve Koczela: [00:23:38] A bill that will allow undocumented immigrants to apply for driver's licenses in Massachusetts became law earlier this month. That's after the state legislature first passed the law and then voted to override Governor Baker's veto. But that's not the end of the story. Here to talk to us about the latest, we're joined by Boston Globe reporter Sam Gross. Welcome back, Sam. [00:23:57][19.1]
Sam Gross: [00:23:58] Thanks for having me, Steve. [00:23:58][0.6]
Steve Koczela: [00:23:59] So the last time we checked in, this bill was working its way through the state legislature. But a lot's happened since then. So bring us up to speed on what's happened since. [00:24:06][7.4]
Sam Gross: [00:24:07] Right. So the bill had passed both chambers of the legislature was sent to the governor for final passage. The governor vetoed the bill and then the chambers voted to override the governor's veto, making the bill into law. The law goes into effect July 2023. [00:24:25][18.4]
Steve Koczela: [00:24:27] And what were his objections? What were Governor Baker's objections that that brought on the veto? [00:24:31][3.8]
Sam Gross: [00:24:31] Yeah. So Baker had a few objections to the bill. His main concern was that people would still use these driver's licenses to register to vote or to vote in Massachusetts elections, despite there being a clause in the bill that says people who are seeking these licenses would not be registered to vote under Massachusetts automatic voter registration law. So in Governor Baker's veto letter to lawmakers, he said the bill would increase the risk that non-citizens would be registered to vote and that it would create a problem for the Registry of Motor Vehicles in verifying various people's identities as they apply for these types of licenses. He had some concerns that this ID that folks would be getting wouldn't be distinguished from normal driver's licenses that documented residents have. In his letter, he said, you know, a Massachusetts driver's license will no longer confirm that a person is who they say they are, according to his letter. [00:25:39][67.7]
Steve Koczela: [00:25:40] How did proponents respond to the governor's objections? What did they say about the substance of what he was pushing back on? [00:25:45][5.0]
Sam Gross: [00:25:46] So proponents of the bill said that the bill did address the concerns that Baker's veto letter addressed in a tweet, Senate President Karen Spilka said that his veto is misguided and that they looked forward to overriding his veto. So some of Baker's concerns, especially regarding election security, were rejected by Democratic leaders who said that their bill address these concerns and making sure that people who are applying for these licenses are not registered to vote under the state's automatic voter registration law. Secretary of State William Galvin put out a statement saying that, you know, raising the voting issue is a red herring, as he called it. And he said that the concerns that the governor was making were exaggerated. [00:26:33][46.4]
Steve Koczela: [00:26:34] Okay. So it is now law, but not so fast as the news sort of taught us this week. There is now a group called Fair and Secure Massachusetts who wants to repeal the new law and another new group called Vote Yes for Work and Family Mobility. Who wants the repeal to fail and to preserve the law? Who's kind of lining up on each side? Who are who's making up these groups that are on the two sides of this issue? [00:26:59][24.8]
Sam Gross: [00:26:59] Sure. So the first group that you mentioned, the group that wants to repeal this law, is made up of GOP activists and candidates who are running this year. I am in Brockton right now after having just attended one of these press conferences that was led by gubernatorial candidate Geoff Diehl, who has kind of thrown his support behind this effort. They are you know, there's a lot of candidates that are lining up behind this effort, and they're having some events around the state this week as the petitions are starting to be distributed for signature gathering. So the GOP chair, Jim Lyons, who said he supports this initiative. And so it'll be interesting to see as this flushes out who's going to be, you know, getting folks prepared to gather the 40,000 or so signatures they need before September. [00:27:53][53.6]
Steve Koczela: [00:27:54] Yeah, that actually brings up a really interesting question, which is, of course, the GOP has struggled this year to get to gather signatures for, you know, ballot questions that were initially potentially going to be on the ballot in 2022. Is there any sign that this effort is either better funded or better organized or will be successful or other Mass GOP led ballot question signature gathering drives have not been successful. [00:28:18][23.7]
Sam Gross: [00:28:19] I mean, it's definitely a concern. This is a very high threshold to meet. It's a short runway toward the deadline here. And 40,000 signatures is no easy task. I think that one of the points that proponents of this this initiative are pointing toward is a few polls that have been done that show that residents in Massachusetts are kind of opposed to the legislation to begin with and would support something like this. It's a statistic that proponents have said at these press conferences, most notably a Suffolk Boston Globe poll that was done earlier this year that said about 47% of residents opposed this legislation. So I think their their focus is on voters who may have not turned out to sign a petition for these other these other questions, but that this may be something that appeals to a broader swath of voters this year. [00:29:17][58.2]
Steve Koczela: [00:29:18] And then over on the side that's trying to keep this law in place. Who are the groups that are behind that? [00:29:22][4.2]
Sam Gross: [00:29:23] Yeah. So a group that launched actually earlier this week to preserve the law, the Vote Yes for Work and Family Mobility. That's a group that's being led by Harris Gruman who's a veteran organizer about initiatives and an SEIU union official. So the Vote Yes for Work and Family Mobility, you know, has a lot of similar backers that helped write the legislation and helped lobby for this over the last several years. So that includes, you know, workers' rights groups and kind of immigrant rights advocates and things like that. [00:29:57][33.4]
Steve Koczela: [00:29:57] Yeah, that will be very interesting to see. You know, particularly with ballot questions, it's so often an issue that people kind of tune into in the last few weeks or even month or so. But right now is, as you mentioned, The Boston Globe found roughly even a UMass WCVB poll also found that more or less even with perhaps a few more against. But this is, of course, before there's been any campaigning done of note, you know, and that is definitely something that we'll be keeping an eye on should this make the ballot. But just to kind of tie that up. What exactly do they have to submit? And by when? In order to make the ballot? When will we know for sure whether this is something we'll be voting on in November? [00:30:35][38.1]
Sam Gross: [00:30:36] Right. So by September 7, the committee has to have submitted 40,120 signatures that have been certified to the secretary of state. So those signatures by September 7th have to be collected, presented to clerk's offices for certification and then submitted to the secretary of state's office, assuming they have enough certified signatures. The question would make it onto the November ballot. Generally speaking, you know, these campaigns have to collect well above the 40,000 mark to ensure that there are enough certified. There are a lot of small rules that have to be taken into account. The petitions can't have stray markings. You know, some people may sign in a county that they are not registered to vote in or a city that they're not registered to vote in. People may think that they're registered to vote and aren't. There's a lot of things that that could go wrong. So generally speaking, these these organizers are going to have to go way above their the required number to ensure the right amount of certified signatures. [00:31:43][66.9]
Steve Koczela: [00:31:44] But fast-forwarding a little bit, if this repeal fails and this law goes in state, it goes into effect and stays in effect. When are these new licenses available and what exactly are they? [00:31:55][11.5]
Sam Gross: [00:31:57] Sure. So the new licenses will be available in July 2023, and that is for people who can provide two documents that prove their identity. Some examples would be a foreign passport and a birth certificate or a passport and a marriage certificate. And this license would allow folks to legally drive in Massachusetts to obtain car insurance. But it is not a real I.D., a federal real ID, which is typically the type of ID given to folks who are applying for driver's licenses and can be used to, for example, get through TSA at an airport. [00:32:34][37.4]
Steve Koczela: [00:32:35] All right. Well, an issue we'll be keeping an eye on for sure. The next kind of moment that we'll be checking in on this probably will be once we have a sense of whether the signatures have been collected and this is headed to the ballot. But for now, Boston Globe reporter Sam Gross, thank you so much for joining us and walking us through this. [00:32:50][15.0]
Sam Gross: [00:32:51] Thanks for having me. [00:32:51][0.5]
Jennifer Smith: [00:32:55] And that brings us to our final segment where we are looking at the ultimate results of the biggest poll of last week: market Basket versus Dunkin'?. [00:33:03][8.1]
Steve Koczela: [00:33:05] The biggest poll for sure in Massachusetts, the most important question in Massachusetts society. And of course, this came from the UMass Lowell poll where they found 75% plus favorables for Dunkin' Donuts and Market Basket. So we asked the very simple question, if the election were held today and the choices were Dunkin' Donuts and Market Basket, how would you vote? And on that critical question, we found 58% said Market Basket. 40% said Dunkin Donuts. So there you have it, Massachusetts voters. Market basket over Dunks. [00:33:34][29.5]
Jennifer Smith: [00:33:36] Wow. I wonder if that says more about, you know, our listenership slash your Twitter followers, Steve, but we're not going to delve into that because that is all the time we have for today. I am Jennifer Smith signing off with Steve Koczela. Our producer is Libby Gormley. Our intern is Elena Eberwein. And don't forget to leave The Horse Race a review. Wherever you're hearing us now, subscribe to the Massachusetts Politico Playbook and reach out to the MassINC Polling Group if you need any polling done. Thank you all for listening and we'll see you next week. [00:33:36][0.0]