How ballot questions become law
October 30, 2018 6:28 AM Subscribe
In Massachusetts, if the first ballot question is approved, will it become law on January 1 as its text states? Or will it undergo a legislative process before implementation?
The bill has a goal that I wholeheartedly support (patient:nurse ratio limits), but a deadline that even its proponents admit is unworkable. On their website, they argue that no fines will be enforced right away, and that there's always room for discretion in whether to enforce them. The text of the legislation itself is less forgiving, though. ("...the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission shall not promulgate any regulation that directly or indirectly permits any delay, temporary or permanent waiver, or modification of the requirements...") I can imagine lawsuits if patients suffer/die when legally required ratios are not met as soon as it becomes law.
In my Indivisible group, someone expressed that the law won't take effect as written -- that ballot questions are designed for modification before implementation. They point to the 2014 ballot question legalizing marijuana as an example, suggesting that according to the letter of that legislation, we would have recreational dispensaries by now. (We don't.)
If that's the case, I'm reassured. My senator and rep are great and they've endorsed it, which makes me think maybe they have reason to expect it'll be ok? I do believe in the Yes side of this bill, and that those raising fears about its implementation timeline are not trustworthy. But even not-trustworthy people are sometimes correct and truthful, and I'm not sure that the deadline objections aren't well-founded. So I'd love to know whether hospitals will have a reasonable timeline before they're fined and/or sued successfully over this bill.
The bill has a goal that I wholeheartedly support (patient:nurse ratio limits), but a deadline that even its proponents admit is unworkable. On their website, they argue that no fines will be enforced right away, and that there's always room for discretion in whether to enforce them. The text of the legislation itself is less forgiving, though. ("...the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission shall not promulgate any regulation that directly or indirectly permits any delay, temporary or permanent waiver, or modification of the requirements...") I can imagine lawsuits if patients suffer/die when legally required ratios are not met as soon as it becomes law.
In my Indivisible group, someone expressed that the law won't take effect as written -- that ballot questions are designed for modification before implementation. They point to the 2014 ballot question legalizing marijuana as an example, suggesting that according to the letter of that legislation, we would have recreational dispensaries by now. (We don't.)
If that's the case, I'm reassured. My senator and rep are great and they've endorsed it, which makes me think maybe they have reason to expect it'll be ok? I do believe in the Yes side of this bill, and that those raising fears about its implementation timeline are not trustworthy. But even not-trustworthy people are sometimes correct and truthful, and I'm not sure that the deadline objections aren't well-founded. So I'd love to know whether hospitals will have a reasonable timeline before they're fined and/or sued successfully over this bill.
Best answer: In my Indivisible group, someone expressed that the law won't take effect as written -- that ballot questions are designed for modification before implementation. They point to the 2014 ballot question legalizing marijuana as an example, suggesting that according to the letter of that legislation, we would have recreational dispensaries by now. (We don't.)
The 2016 ballot measure for recreational marijuana (Question 4), set a legal sales start date of Jan 1, 2018 - it became law after approval by the voters and was then amended by the legislature to July 1, 2018, in the same way the legislature can amend any laws (and then further delayed by the executive branch by slow-walking licensing of the required testing facilities). So, if this one is approved, the legislature could change the effective date of the ratio requirements, include legal liability protections for hospitals during a transition period, provide a de minimis exception, or do really anything else within their legislative authority. The Governor could take certain executive actions on the basis of emergency conditions. The executive agencies responsible for administering the law could provide waivers or other case-by-case relief. Those affected could sue and obtain an injunction preventing enforcement of the law. If the government of Massachusetts doesn't want this to be a law as it is written, they can take many actions to reduce its effectiveness. Unlike many other states, the Massachusetts legislature technically has a year-long session and can meet at any time.
If it were a proposed constitutional amendment rather than a law, then the legislative and executive branches would have less power to impact its implementation.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:28 AM on October 30, 2018 [1 favorite]
The 2016 ballot measure for recreational marijuana (Question 4), set a legal sales start date of Jan 1, 2018 - it became law after approval by the voters and was then amended by the legislature to July 1, 2018, in the same way the legislature can amend any laws (and then further delayed by the executive branch by slow-walking licensing of the required testing facilities). So, if this one is approved, the legislature could change the effective date of the ratio requirements, include legal liability protections for hospitals during a transition period, provide a de minimis exception, or do really anything else within their legislative authority. The Governor could take certain executive actions on the basis of emergency conditions. The executive agencies responsible for administering the law could provide waivers or other case-by-case relief. Those affected could sue and obtain an injunction preventing enforcement of the law. If the government of Massachusetts doesn't want this to be a law as it is written, they can take many actions to reduce its effectiveness. Unlike many other states, the Massachusetts legislature technically has a year-long session and can meet at any time.
If it were a proposed constitutional amendment rather than a law, then the legislative and executive branches would have less power to impact its implementation.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:28 AM on October 30, 2018 [1 favorite]
Best answer: The Health Policy Commission language is almost certainly about ensuring that any changes to the law have to go through the (slow-moving, small-c conservative, Democratic-controlled) legislature, and can't be imposed administratively by our (Republican, anti-regulation) governor.
posted by firechicago at 7:35 AM on October 30, 2018
posted by firechicago at 7:35 AM on October 30, 2018
It's helpful to think of the voters as legislators in cases of ballot measures.
posted by postel's law at 8:02 AM on October 30, 2018
posted by postel's law at 8:02 AM on October 30, 2018
Response by poster: Thank you! melissasaurus, it's very helpful to know that there are a variety of legislative ways to mitigate the problematic aspects of the ballot measure after it passes. That decided it for me, and let me get my early vote in yesterday. Much appreciated!
posted by daisyace at 7:52 AM on October 31, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by daisyace at 7:52 AM on October 31, 2018 [1 favorite]
« Older Plant ID du Jour.... Tall Grass Prairie Seeds... | Cashew cream for vegan ramen broth? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by cribcage at 6:44 AM on October 30, 2018