Question 3: Not as sexy as wine sales at the supermarket, but on the ballot nonetheless

Question 3 would let private child-care providers unionize so that they could bargain collectively with the state in negotiating reimbursement rates (who knew this was a constitutional issue?).

The Secretary of State's office provides a summary and pro/con arguments (scroll down past the similar info for Questions 1 and 2).

Lynne on Blue Mass. Group urges a yes vote:

... Your "yes" vote will help working families have better access to affordable, quality child care by giving home-based child care providers the ability to work with the Commonwealth to improve the services they provide our children. This proposed law will not increase taxes or child care costs for Massachusetts residents. ...

Shai Sachs will vote yes: No one wants child care workers to be exploited..

Chris Wagner, on Blue Mass. Group, explains why his mother, who works in a daycare system in Lawrence, opposes the measure, in part because it will raise costs:

... If this measure passes, many of the smaller family day care systems, which provide lots of training and support, especially to non English speaking family day care providers will simply close their doors, leaving these providers to fend for themselves. Many of the non English speaking providers will lose valuable support and as a result will no doubt close themselves.
...

More pro-3 statements:

• Yes for Kids - a pro-Question 3 site.
• Service Employees International Union
• National Association of Government Employees
• Giving children a better future - Pro-3 op-ed from New Bedford.
• Promise the Children

More anti-3 statements:

• State Department of Early Education and Child Care
• Boston Herald