Sep 23, 2026 · 1 hr 6 min · 12 segments
Massachusetts has nine questions on the ballot this year. Is that a sign of civic enthusiasm or of a deeper problem with our state legislature? Jennifer Nassour, who helped drive a ballot question…
Jennifer NassourGuestBrendanHostRickyHostYeah, Ricky, huge thanks to Jen for her energy and passion.
You can tell that she just lives and breathes this stuff as a citizen and as someone that's just so involved in our democracy, really all levels of the democracy.
She referenced a couple of things that she did that I hadn't even really... highlighted in her bio because I said there were so many different things.
But she's someone that not only is currently still doing the work of helping manage campaigns, but is also treasurer for ballot questions.
She previously ran herself for city council and was the chairperson of the Massachusetts Republican Party.
So she's been at all levels of local, state, federal government for us.
And that's why it's always fun talking to her.
She definitely had some things that she wanted to to say, to get off her chest, to say on a different podcast for a new audience.
And I appreciated that.
I think for a couple of things stood out to me.
One, we talked about this briefly, and this is really why I wanted to have her on originally, is when she said the shift from legislating on Beacon Hill to legislating by ballot initiatives.
In her piece, she writes, quote, that shift has trade-offs.
Complex policy gets compressed into yes or no decisions.
Campaigns replace committee hearings.
Statewide messaging substitutes for legislative negotiation.
It's a far less precise instrument than crafting laws through the legislature, but people are choosing it anyway.
That's the signal.
And that's really where I was trying to get at.
And I do think we touched on that a little bit, but what I really appreciated about that initial piece was that's something that I feel you have long harped on of, Even when we have four ballot questions like we did a couple of years ago, even then you're still like, this doesn't seem like something that the average voter should be the one weighing in on.
Even people who have the luxury of the time and the intellectual capacity to delve into the minutia of these questions, to actually read the full text of them and to try to think about... understand like how that would actually play out on a day-to-day basis how would that affect our lives in the commonwealth that's that's still not what we're supposed to be doing in a ballot box in november it's supposed to be legislature doing it and so i think her her passion for that and kind of like her antipathy towards like the current legislature on on beacon hill is is well taken now so that was point one point two is i know you can tell she's like very personally fired up, offended even, that her ballot initiative, the one that she referenced repeatedly about repealing the legislative stipends on Beacon Hill, didn't make it.
And it was because of this convoluted thing where she said they got the signatures, but then the AG wrote a summary of it.
The SJC says that summary is unclear or potentially unconstitutional.
It goes back to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.
They say it's actually not going to go on the ballot.
She alluded to potential collusion of people who are self-interested in the process, who aren't exactly unbiased observers of this process, having a direct hand in it.
Yeah, Ricky, huge thanks to Jen for her energy and passion.
You can tell that she just lives and breathes this stuff as a citizen and as someone that's just so involved in our democracy, really all levels of the democracy.
She referenced a couple of things that she did that I hadn't even really... highlighted in her bio because I said there were so many different things.
But she's someone that not only is currently still doing the work of helping manage campaigns, but is also treasurer for ballot questions.
She previously ran herself for city council and was the chairperson of the Massachusetts Republican Party.
So she's been at all levels of local, state, federal government for us.
And that's why it's always fun talking to her.
She definitely had some things that she wanted to to say, to get off her chest, to say on a different podcast for a new audience.
And I appreciated that.
I think for a couple of things stood out to me.
One, we talked about this briefly, and this is really why I wanted to have her on originally, is when she said the shift from legislating on Beacon Hill to legislating by ballot initiatives.
In her piece, she writes, quote, that shift has trade-offs.
Complex policy gets compressed into yes or no decisions.
Campaigns replace committee hearings.
Statewide messaging substitutes for legislative negotiation.
It's a far less precise instrument than crafting laws through the legislature, but people are choosing it anyway.
That's the signal.
And that's really where I was trying to get at.
And I do think we touched on that a little bit, but what I really appreciated about that initial piece was that's something that I feel you have long harped on of, Even when we have four ballot questions like we did a couple of years ago, even then you're still like, this doesn't seem like something that the average voter should be the one weighing in on.
Even people who have the luxury of the time and the intellectual capacity to delve into the minutia of these questions, to actually read the full text of them and to try to think about... understand like how that would actually play out on a day-to-day basis how would that affect our lives in the commonwealth that's that's still not what we're supposed to be doing in a ballot box in november it's supposed to be legislature doing it and so i think her her passion for that and kind of like her antipathy towards like the current legislature on on beacon hill is is well taken now so that was point one point two is i know you can tell she's like very personally fired up, offended even, that her ballot initiative, the one that she referenced repeatedly about repealing the legislative stipends on Beacon Hill, didn't make it.
And it was because of this convoluted thing where she said they got the signatures, but then the AG wrote a summary of it.
The SJC says that summary is unclear or potentially unconstitutional.
It goes back to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.
They say it's actually not going to go on the ballot.
She alluded to potential collusion of people who are self-interested in the process, who aren't exactly unbiased observers of this process, having a direct hand in it.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.