There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week. This week, Beacon Hill Roll Call looks at Question 2, one of the five questions on the ballot that will be decided directly by the voters in November.

The question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would eliminate the current requirement that in order to get a high school diploma, a student must pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests in mathematics, science, technology and English. This requirement would be replaced by a requirement that the student complete coursework certified by the student’s district as demonstrating mastery of the competencies contained in the state academic standards in mathematics, science and technology and English, as well as any additional areas determined by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY: “The Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) and the other supporters of Question 2 were certainly pleased to see polling indicative of strong public support for replacing the MCAS graduation requirement with a more authentic assessment of students’ academic work and achievement,” MTA President Max Page and Vice President Deb McCarthy told Beacon Hill Roll Call last week. “Between now and Election Day, we will just keep doing what we have been doing all year: talking to voters. Thousands of classroom educators have knocked on doors and made phone calls, explaining what Question 2 does and listening to stories from people adversely affected by the MCAS graduation requirement.”

“Opponents of Question 2 are attempting to mislead the public into thinking the ballot measure eliminates the MCAS altogether or dismantles our state’s high academic standards,” said Page and McCarthy. “Both claims are false. MCAS exams fulfill a federal requirement, and the ballot question does not seek to end their use. MCAS exams will continue to be given just as they are now, and the tests will yield the same data.”

The pair continued, “The state’s uniform academic standards exist independently of the assessment tool. In fact, educators will be able to more fully immerse students in standards-based content once [they are] free to better diversify teaching strategies that accommodate all learning styles. Public education needs to focus on preparing students for the workforce, higher education and career training. Our partners in the business world and from colleges and universities tell us we accomplish those goals by developing students’ abilities to be critical thinkers, problem solvers and team players. The standardized MCAS exams do not focus on those skills and should not be a tool used to hold back students.”

WHAT OPPONENTS SAY: “Having a single, statewide standard for graduation has raised expectations in ways that have resulted in greater equity and achievement for all students,” Dom Slowey, spokesperson for the Vote No on 2 campaign told Beacon Hill Roll Call last week. “Massachusetts has risen in the national rankings to first in the nation in student achievement. Graduation rates have risen and dropout rates have fallen. Question 2 would remove our only statewide graduation standard. Nothing will replace it. The only statewide requirement left will be that students participate in four years of gym, and that districts offer — but students are not required to pass — history and civics. Massachusetts would have less rigorous high school graduation requirements than Mississippi and Alabama.”

Slowey continued, “If we remove this key graduation requirement, it will result in more than 300 different and unequal standards for high school graduation across the commonwealth, leading to haphazard assessments of student readiness for college and careers and even wider inequities in student achievement and opportunities. Some school districts will just adopt lower standards so students ‘graduate’ even if they haven’t learned the knowledge and skills they need to succeed. It’s not fair to kids to grant diplomas when they aren’t yet ready to graduate.”

“If students cannot pass basic assessments in math, English or science, the answer is not to eliminate the standard. Rather than lowering the academic standard for all students, the focus should be on ensuring students who are struggling get the help they need. The vast majority of students pass the 10th grade assessment and are awarded diplomas. Annually, the number of students who don’t graduate is about 700 out of more than 70,000 graduates. Put differently, only 1% of high school graduates do not graduate on time because they have not passed the MCAS. High school students have several chances to pass the test between 10th and 12th grade. The state also provides numerous accommodations for students with disabilities, English learners and other students who need them, so they are not disadvantaged.”

OFFICIAL ARGUMENTS: Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, for each side of the question.

IN FAVOR: Written by Shelley Scruggs, parents volunteer of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, massteacher.org

“A ‘yes’ on Question 2 gives all students the opportunity to thrive and reach their full potential. We all agree that high standards help keep our public schools great, and assessments are needed to ensure that students master the knowledge and skills to succeed in life after high school. However, the MCAS is a one-size-fits-all exam that fails to measure other student achievement measures such as GPA, coursework and teacher assessments in determining if a student is allowed to graduate.

“Replacing the MCAS graduation requirement with more comprehensive measures will allow teachers to stop teaching to a test and unburden students from a make-or-break standardized test. Voting ‘yes’ will allow schools and teachers, together with parents and students, to focus on the most important skills and knowledge to help students succeed in life, rather than having to focus on only those skills that can be measured on a standardized test.”

AGAINST: Written by Protect Our Kids’ Future: Vote ‘No’ on 2, protectourkidsfuture.com

“Question 2 is unfair to kids and will increase inequality. Some school districts will just adopt lower standards so students ‘graduate’ even if they haven’t learned the knowledge and skills they need to succeed. It’s not fair to grant diplomas to kids who aren’t yet ready to graduate. If students cannot pass basic assessments in math, English or science, we adults should do the hard work to get them up to speed. Instead of supporting kids, Question 2 would abandon them.

“Question 2 would remove our only statewide graduation standard. Massachusetts would have less rigorous high school graduation requirements than Mississippi and Alabama. Question 2 is a radical and untested proposal and should be rejected. Significant changes to our education system should be carefully studied, designed and implemented by experts to ensure these policies are actually better for our kids.”

Also up on Beacon HillGun law repeal effort

A group calling itself the Civil Rights Coalition announced it collected more than 90,000 signatures in its effort to repeal the law, approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor in July, that changed some of the state’s gun regulations. The group needed to collect 37,287 signatures and file them with local city and town clerks by Oct. 9 as the first step toward getting the repeal question on the November 2026 ballot. Sponsors then have until Oct. 23 to file the signatures with the Secretary of State’s Office, which will decide if there are sufficient certified signatures to qualify for the November 2026 ballot.

Provisions of the new law include cracking down on untraceable ghost guns; banning firearms in additional public spaces like schools, polling places and government buildings; expanding the 2018 “red flag” law that allows school administrators and licensed health care providers to petition a court to temporarily take firearms away from someone deemed a threat to themselves or others; closing loopholes that allow the modification of legal firearms into illegal automatic weapons; and providing a legacy clause so all firearms legally owned and registered in Massachusetts as of the effective date of the bill will continue to be legal and may be bought and sold within the state.

Gov. Maura Healey recently attached an emergency preamble to the law. The emergency preamble makes the law take effect immediately instead of on Oct. 23 as originally scheduled. Healey’s move came on the heels of the announcement of the campaign to repeal the law.

Under the Massachusetts Constitution, if a ballot campaign collects a certain number of signatures, it can prevent the implementation of a law without an emergency preamble from taking effect until voters weigh in on whether to repeal it. The emergency preamble prevents suspension of the law while still allowing the repeal campaign to take place.

“This emergency preamble that was signed was done in an effort to suppress a right that is enshrined in our Bill of Rights,” said Toby Leary, the leader of the coalition to repeal the law. “That should never be allowed. It should never be able to stand.”

“This is about ensuring that we’re ready to go in terms of implementation,” responded Healey. “The system is there. It’s a democracy. You can go to your Legislature and you can advocate for policy and advocate for laws, and that’s the way the system works.”

“We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us,” said Leary. “We’ve got legal action that will be coming, and we’ve got a long way to go. I believe this will be a two-year civics lesson for the people of Massachusetts when they see what their politicians have done. It’s our turn to remind them you need to comply with your oath of office. Let’s make the oath of office great again.”

Leary also hinted that his group is weighing legal options to challenge the governor’s action.

“We don’t want to tip our hand exactly as to what we’re doing, but yes, we are exploring all options. I do believe the governor acted outside of the constitutional provisions,” Leary said. “No doubt, under Article 48, there’s a provision there for a governor to sign an emergency preamble. However, the way in which it was done for purely political purposes to suppress a right [is something] I believe the courts would look very unfavorably on.”

Child custody (S 2961)

The Senate approved and sent to the House a bill that supporters say would simplify and modernize child custody jurisdiction laws.

Supporters, noting that Massachusetts is the only one of the 50 states that has not opted into this law, argued the pact will make the Bay State’s interstate custody laws consistent with the 49 other states. They noted the bill would create clear rules that would be established for multi-state custody cases, prioritizing the home state of the child and ensuring Massachusetts courts can work effectively with courts in other states, nationally and in other countries for international child custody orders.

“I’m proud that the Massachusetts Senate passed my legislation to bring Massachusetts in line with the rest of the nation by enacting the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act,” said sponsor Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem, D-Newton. “I am grateful to have the support of the Boston Bar Association, the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Massachusetts chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers behind this important bill.”

“Today’s legislation aims to simplify a process that is already difficult for children and families,” said Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland. “Bringing Massachusetts in line with other states nationally will enhance the well-being of people going through this process and give families clarity in their path forward.”

The Senate approved similar bills in 2016 and 2018 but the bills died in the House from inaction.

Additional $600,000 to fund diaper program

The Massachusetts Association for Community Action (MASSCAP) announced that it has been awarded $600,000 in federal funds to extend, for another year, the federal diaper pilot program that provides diapers for low-income families. The $600,000 is on top of the original $1.2 million grant that funded the program for two years. MASSCAP has operated the program with 16 agencies across Massachusetts and Connecticut to distribute more than 2 million diapers to low-income families.

“The continuance of resources … signals a definitive recognition that this is a very real issue for countless families experiencing low incomes,” said Joe Diamond, MASSCAP executive director. “However, in Massachusetts, more than one-third of families struggle to afford enough diapers, meaning we are limited in the number of families we can reach with this award.”

“Our resources support the inclusion of less than half of our agencies across the state, but all of our statewide network has indicated they have a need for diapers. Participating agencies in our network are currently operating their programs at [full] capacity and hold long waitlists,” said Colleen Cullen, MASSCAP’s grants and compliance director. “We applaud the federal government for recognizing the need, but this funding only begins to scratch the surface.”

MASSCAP also urged passage of state legislation that would create a diaper program funded and operated by the state. The two bills (H 149 and S 104) were given a favorable report by the Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities Committee but have been stuck in the House Ways and Means Committee since Feb. 15.

“Access to diapers is a critical need for families across the commonwealth and no caregiver should have to make compromises because a basic necessity like diapers is unaffordable,” said Sen. Joan Lovely, D-Salem, who sponsored the bill in the Senate. “[The bill] would be a major step in supporting the caregivers of the commonwealth by expanding access to free diapers through food pantries, providing much-needed relief for our low-income families’ need.”

Attorney general files lawsuit against TikTok

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell has filed a lawsuit in Suffolk County Superior Court against TikTok for intentionally designing its social media platform to be addictive and harmful to young users and for deceiving the public about its efforts to keep its platform safe.

The lawsuit alleges this violates the state’s consumer protection laws and has contributed to a youth mental health crisis among the hundreds of thousands of young people in Massachusetts who use TikTok’s platform.

“Massachusetts will not tolerate a future where companies exploit the vulnerabilities of young people for profit,” Campbell said. “Today’s lawsuit further demonstrates my office’s focus on the well-being of our children by laying out arguments that TikTok, primarily driven by greed, designed technology that leads young people to become compulsive and addicted users of the platform, harming their well-being and contributing to the ongoing youth mental health crisis across our country.”