MASSACHUSETTS ELECTIONS regularly remind me that life is full of disappointment. Candidates I favor rarely win; incumbents I can’t stand are routinely reelected. But there is something about the Bay State’s election system I can praise without reserve: I am grateful to live in a state in which initiative petitions — proposed laws drafted by citizens’ groups for the public to vote on — are permitted. Only 24 states give voters that power to bypass the legislature and make laws directly.

Professional politicians, among others, often complain about ballot questions — there are too many of them, they say, and special-interest money is frequently what drives them, and uninformed voters are often swayed by misleading advertising. To make the process more difficult, the Legislature has enacted numerous regulations, timetables, approval requirements, and signature quotas that an initiative campaign must meet to get on the ballot. Of the initiatives that get that far, about half are rejected by the voters. According to the Massachusetts secretary of state’s office, between 1918 — the year the right of initiative was added to the Massachusetts Constitution — and 2022, only 85 initiative petitions for a new law made it to the ballot. Just 42 were adopted.

Five initiatives appear on the state ballot this year. Here’s how I plan to vote on them.

Yes on Question 1. State Auditor Diana DiZoglio ran for office on a pledge to audit the Massachusetts Legislature, which is notorious for its secrecy, lack of transparency, and authoritarian leadership. But House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka know that allowing any sunshine to illuminate the dark corners of their Beacon Hill empire could threaten their grip on power. So they have stonewalled requests by DiZoglio to scrutinize the records and procedures of the Legislature. They contend that the House and Senate can be trusted to audit themselves, a claim that should induce a spit take. They also insist that it would affront the constitutional principle of separation of powers for the auditor, an officer of the executive branch, to investigate the legislative branch. That argument might be more persuasive if legislative leaders hadn’t on multiple occasions in the past permitted auditors to open the Legislature’s books.

Question 1 would modify state law to expressly authorize the auditor to audit the Legislature. I am voting yes to make it clear that a professional audit is no threat to the Constitution, however much it might threaten the absolute rule of certain State House potentates.

No on Question 2. Rare is the issue these days on which there is broad, bipartisan agreement. One such rarity is the need to retain the requirement that Massachusetts students pass the MCAS tests in math, science, and English as a condition of getting a diploma. Question 2 — a project of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the powerful labor union — would abolish that requirement. Its passage would destroy the tool most responsible for the transformation of Massachusetts schools over the past three decades from mediocre to superb. Which is why a wide array of advocates and activists — Democrats and Republicans, public officials and business groups, The Boston Globe and Boston Herald, Governor Maura Healey and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, school principals, chambers of commerce, even a former MTA president — have all urged voters to reject Question 2.

The initiative’s backers claim to be concerned about subjecting students to the “high stakes” of a graduation requirement. What should concern them is the even higher stakes of letting students graduate without having achieved basic educational proficiency. The MCAS tests aren’t a cakewalk; they require a fair amount of time, study, and classroom preparation. But 96 percent of Massachusetts students pass the tests, nearly all on their first try. If Question 2 passes, the tests will still be administered — but with no consequences for failure. The result is easy to predict: a swift decline in the performance of the state’s schools. I am voting no to thwart the union’s attempt to wreck one of the most successful reforms Massachusetts ever implemented.

No on Question 3. In a landmark settlement in June, drivers for ride-hailing and food-delivery apps like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash won what Attorney General Andrea Campbell described as an “unprecedented” package of benefits. The drivers were guaranteed a hefty base wage ($32.50 per hour to start), multiple forms of paid leave, insurance, antidiscrimination protections, and health care stipends — all while retaining their coveted status as independent contractors free to set their own hours and work as much or as little as they choose. Question 3 would destroy that flexibility by turning drivers into a bargaining unit to be unionized. That would mean an end to the independence that app drivers prize.

If Question 3 passes, a union would need support from only a tiny fraction of drivers — 5 percent of “active” drivers, which equals 2.5 percent of all drivers — to gain access to the name, address, and phone number of every driver. Once 25 percent of active drivers signed cards supporting a union, all drivers would be required to submit to collective bargaining and union discipline. There would be no election. I am voting no because the proposed law would be unfair to gig drivers who cherish their flexibility and because I oppose forcing workers into a union against their will.

No on Question 4. As a small-l libertarian, I generally believe that adults should be free to ingest whatever substances they wish, so long as that freedom does not harm innocent third parties. Question 4 would legalize the private use, distribution, and unsupervised home growth of multiple kinds of psychedelics. It would also authorize the creation of commercial “therapeutic centers” to sell the drugs to customers, with “facilitators” on hand to supervise their psychedelic experience.

In theory, I’m for letting competent adults decide for themselves that they want to consume mescaline tabs or magic mushrooms. But in reality, this badly drafted initiative would exacerbate every problem associated with hallucinogenics. It would increase the medical and mental side effects that such drugs often cause. It would likely boost the number of motorists driving while strung out on mind-altering substances. It would endanger children, pets, and unsuspecting adults who might ingest the drugs. It would certainly guarantee the rise of a black market in homegrown psychedelics. On top of everything else, it would create a new state commission to regulate the turmoil legalization would unleash. Even for a libertarian, that all adds up to a bad trip, so I am voting no.

No on Question 5. Under existing law, workers such as waiters or bartenders can be paid less than the standard minimum wage, assuming their tips make up the difference. Question 5 would abolish this “tipped minimum wage,” requiring employers to pay the full minimum hourly wage even to workers who are generously tipped.

It’s a terrible proposal. The destructive folly of minimum wage laws is well established. A vast body of empirical literature has documented repeatedly that whenever the government artificially raises the price of anyone’s labor, it inevitably leads to some workers losing their jobs or being given fewer shifts. Even a ballot initiative cannot repeal the law of demand: If voters, by approving Question 5, make it more costly to employ low-skilled workers, then fewer low-skilled workers will be employed. I am voting no because minimum wage laws are immoral and irrational, and I don’t wish to make it harder for tipped workers to earn a good living.