Gov. Baker reveals how hell vote on the 4 Mass. ballot questions

Gov. Charlie Baker disclosed Thursday that he will vote no on three out of four ballot questions before Bay Staters this fall.

Baker, a Republican, has long opposed a state law allowing undocumented immigrants without proof of lawful presence to obtain drivers licenses and hes made it clear hell vote no on Ballot Question 4, in a bid to repeal the contentious Work and Family Mobility Act.

Hes also voiced opposition to Ballot Question 1, often referred to as the Fair Share Amendment or millionaires tax, that would impose a 4% surtax on incomes exceeding $1 million.Read more: We become less competitive: Business leaders argue against millionaires tax ballot question

During an interview Thursday on GBHs Boston Public Radio, Baker revealed he will vote no on Ballot Question 2, which seeks to overhaul the structure of dental insurance premiums, and yes on Ballot Question 3, which revamps the allocation of liquor licenses at retailers across Massachusetts.

Should Ballot Question 2 pass, dental insurance companies would need to spend at least 83% of premiums on patient care, rather than on administrative expenses, taxes or profits.

Baker said hes against the referendum due to three major unanswered questions: If I have dental coverage, is this going to affect where I can go to get coverage? Is this going to change what I pay for my coverage? And is it going to change the relationship that exists currently between insurers and dentists that affects price?Read more: Four Mass. residents pardoned by Gov. Baker for various non-violent crimes

Baker said he personally doesnt know the answers to his questions, though he hopes the Massachusetts Legislature presses the next administration to conduct a study gauging an appropriate medical loss ratio and then come back and tell people what it actually means.

The governor struck a more favorable tone about Ballot Question 3, which would gradually expand the alcohol license threshold for retailers, initially to 12 licenses in 2023 and to 15 licenses in 2027. It would also limit the number of all alcoholic beverages licenses a retailer could own to seven, unless the entity already has more than that.Read more: DraftKings asks regulators to reconsider sports betting launch timeline

Im gonna vote yes, mostly because it looks sort of like legislation we filed a couple of years ago. It retains local communities continuing to have a certain amount of authority over the number of licenses and in the way they get issued, Baker said. It also, I think, is an attempt to create some compromise between the mom and pops and the big out-of-state chains, which, from my point of view, settling the dust on that one would be a good thing.