Deep Dive: A Guide to Ballot Questions for Election 2026

This is the second in a two-part series looking at ballot measures and the questions being placed before voters in the general election on Tuesday, Nov. 3. Part 1 looked at the history and process for ballot measures.

 

The following is a summary of the nine state ballot measures in the 2026 Massachusetts election, compiled from various sources. Further text and details on these measures are available in the state's official ballot guide and Ballotpedia, a non-partisan non-profit online political encyclopedia.

 

Question 1: This proposal would expand the Massachusetts Public Records Law to the state Legislature and Office of the Governor. This is intended to improve public access to documents and other records. The current public records law only applies to state agencies and local governments.

 

A Yes vote would support this change; a No vote would leave the Public Records Law as it is.

 

On one level, this question is straightforward. However, the details are complex. Massachusetts has often been criticized for a lack of transparency, even with the existing public records law. Passage would send a clear signal of the preferences of voters, but could be challenged or lead to further maneuvering.

 

A primary proponent of this is State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who had also filed a 2024 ballot question that requires an audit of the state Legislature. Among other effects, Question 1 is intended to advance that by allowing her to gain access to the information needed for an audit. It would also make records more available to journalists, organizations and individuals seeking information on legislative and gubernatorial actions.

 

Polls indicate strong support for the concept. However the measure has elicited mixed responses among politicians and officeholders. Gov. Maura Healey has said she supports the bill as long as certain exemptions are included. The state Republican Party and the Democratic Committee have expressed support for it.

 

However, members of the Legislature and others criticize and oppose the measure. They contend that it would require a cumbersome layer of administrative bureaucracy and would also inhibit the ability of legislators to freely discuss and negotiate laws and policies. They say it would also violate the confidentiality of constituents seeking assistance from legislators and others who need to communicate

with them.

 

The House and Senate have been working to preempt the ballot question with bills that would increase transparency but would be more limited and would not expand the Public Records Law to them.

 

Question 2: This proposed law would permit employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to form a union and engage in collective bargaining. It would also enable CPCS employees to request the appropriation necessary to fund such agreements from the governor.

 

A Yes vote would specify that CPCS employees may form a union to collectively bargain. But it does not require that they do so, and the decision would be up to the employees. A No vote would make no change to the current law.

 

CPCS provides criminal and non-criminal legal services to people who are entitled by law to legal representation but cannot afford counsel on their own. It has approximately 800 employees, including attorneys, paralegals, social workers and administrative staff. It also contracts with 3,000 private attorneys for legal services.

 

Unlike other employees of Massachusetts, the staff of CPCS was not originally given the right to unionize or pursue collective bargaining. Similar workers in many other states have those rights. Since 1979 there have been three attempts to gain these rights, but they have been blocked because it would require changes in state law, which the Legislature has not passed. That prompted proponents to organize Question 2. This occurs at a time when the Legislature has expanded the staff and budget of CPCS, and there have been conflicts and work stoppages over pay and other conditions. The non-employee contract attorneys have also expressed dissatisfaction.

 

The campaign lead for the measure is Yes on 2. Supporters include a number of state officials, the Democratic Party of Massachusetts (the state Republican Party has not taken a position). Other supporters include the Massachusetts Working Families Party, the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Coalition for Social Justice, the American Federation of Teachers, the Massachusetts Defenders Union, the National Association of Government Employees and SEIU Local 888, among others.

 

"Our staff include teams of lawyers and paralegals, social workers and investigators, administrative assistants and interpreters — just to name a few, " states the campaign website. "But unlike so many other state workers in Massachusetts, our staff has long been left out of the laws that give public employees the right to unionize."

 

It also notes that although Massachusetts has many top law schools and social work programs "too often, our graduates take their degrees out of state, where unionized public defender organizations offer enforceable contracts, sustainable working conditions, and a voice in the management of their agencies. We aim to reverse that trend."

 

The ballot question has some critics but no organized opposition campaign that has submitted arguments for the ballot. In cases such as that, the Secretary of State's Office is required to prepare an explanation of opposition positions' arguments based on other sources.

 

The summary states: "Allowing employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to collectively bargain creates serious operational and fiscal risks for the judiciary. CPCS operates as an independent judicial branch agency tasked with providing constitutional defense to indigent clients. Introducing collective bargaining into this framework could disrupt existing management and supervisory frameworks, introduce ambiguity into lines of authority, and create operational inefficiencies.

 

Changes to labor relations policies of this scale could have unintended consequences for the delivery of legal services, particularly if they limit the agency's ability to respond flexibly to fluctuating caseloads, staffing needs, and court demands."

 

Question 3: This would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections with an all-party primary.

 

A Yes vote would replace the current party primaries and general election with this new system. A No vote would keep the current system.

 

In the present system, voters in primary elections request either a Democratic or Republican ballot, with candidates limited to that party. Then, in the general election all voters receive a single ballot with the winners of both primaries, plus any independent or third-party candidates who qualify.

 

In the proposal in Question 3, voters in both parties would receive the same primary ballot, in which all candidates appear regardless of party affiliation. The two candidates who receive the most votes would advance to the general election.

 

This is similar to states such as California, which is sometimes described as a "jungle primary." Proponents say the goal is to provide a more open and equitable process for candidates and more options for voters.

 

The supporters and opponents on both sides are diverse and are on varying sides of partisan and ideological lines. Each position has support of specific unions and other interest groups. Both the Massachusetts Democratic Party and the Massachusetts Republican Party oppose Question 3, but individual politicians and office holders in both parties either support or oppose it. For example, former Govs. Deval Patrick (D) and Charlie Baker (R) support it. 

 

The main sponsor of this campaign is Yes on 3 and the Coalition for Healthy Democracy. Their website argues that most Massachusetts elections "are over and decided before the general election in November. Since 2014, 51 percent of all races in Massachusetts feature no opposition — one candidate who wins by default because there's no other person to vote for … Two-thirds of Massachusetts voters don't belong to either party. Passing Question 3 means every voter sees every candidate on their primary election ballot, and every candidate faces every voter. Candidates are incentivized to communicate to everyone, not just a small slice of their constituency."

 

An opposing organization, Vote No on 3, claims that this system would limit choices. It also contends that rather than being a grassroots movement to address problems in Massachusetts, the Yes campaign is part of a national effort to favor well-funded establishment candidates and limit alternative candidates in the general election.

 

"When only two candidates can advance, November's election can be two people from the same party, and knock every independent and third-party voice off the final ballot," it states.

 

The Yes on 3 campaign has raised nearly 80 percent of its $7.8 million from 23 donors, including $2.6 million from executives and employees of private investment firms Bain Capital and Berkshire Ventures. The No on 3 has raised $288,000, largely from organized labor, the Democratic State Committee and small donors. The amounts raised for this and other questions can be found on the front page of the Office of Campaign and Political Finance's website.

 

Question 4: This proposed law would permit eligible individuals to register to vote or update their voter registration address on Election Day. A Yes vote would allow this in the 2028 election. A No vote would keep the current system intact with no

changes.

 

Currently individuals must register or update their registration (such as a new address) by 10 days before Election Day. Under the proposed change, an eligible individual could register to vote on Election Day by going to their polling place and

presenting proof of residency (such as a valid photo ID or documentation with their name and address such as a current utility bill, bank statement or other document).

 

They would also sign a written oath declaring that they are a U.S. citizen who is eligible to vote and an acknowledgement of the legal penalties for false statements. If an individual does not present proof of residency, they would be allowed to cast a

provisional ballot, which would be counted when they provide it before the close of polls for a municipal election; within two days after a state primary; or within six days after a state election.

 

Among its supporters are Gov. Maura Healey, Attorney General Andrea Campbell, and Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin. It is also supported by the Democratic State Committee, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the

Massachusetts American Federation of Teachers (AFT), among others.

 

The primary campaign organization for this question is Yes 4, whose members include Common Cause Massachusetts, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the Sieu, MassVOTE, Mass Voter Table, and the ACLU of Massachusetts, among others.

 

Supporters contend it would both encourage new voter turnout and reduce the barriers for currently registered voters. Its website states: "It's a proven and time-tested reform. All kinds of states have implemented it successfully: red, blue, and purple, large and small, urban and rural. Some have had it in place for more than 50 years. It's a straightforward, secure, and proven way to boost voter turnout and streamline elections administration without adding costs."

 

The major organized opposition includes the Massachusetts Republican Party, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. The Republican voter guide suggests a No vote. It contends that same-day voting registration "... opens the door to administrative errors, fraud and a logistical nightmare that can undermine the integrity of our elections."

 

Opponents also say it would burden poll workers by requiring them to spend time verifying registration documents while also conducting other election duties. This could also cause delays for other voters at the polls and additional expenses to municipalities.

 

Question 5: This measure would change the limit on how much revenue the state can collect in a given year. The amount would be tied to the prior year collections plus average wage and salary growth over the previous three years. It would provide a taxpayer rebate of revenue exceeding that limit. 

 

A Yes Vote would authorize this change. A No vote would keep the current system.

 

While it is a technical change involving complex mathematical calculations, it represents fundamental ideological differences over the appropriate level of taxation and government spending. It would likely have a significant impact on the budgets and

programs of state and local governments,

 

A leading campaign organization in favor of this proposal is Yes on 5 affiliated with Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts. The measure also has the support of the Massachusetts Republican party and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, among others.

 

Proponents say a Yes vote will "create stronger fiscal guardrails, promote accountability, guard against future tax increases, and ensure government growth reflects what taxpayers can afford. It will not cut state spending for important services like education, transportation, or healthcare."

 

They describe it as updating a 1986 measure in which Massachusetts voters approved Chapter 62F to establish a Revenue Growth Limit. That law was designed to mandate refunds to taxpayers when the tax collections exceeded certain limits. However, they contend that inappropriate formulas, calculations and loopholes have reduced its original intent and effectiveness in controlling spending. They note it has only triggered refunds in in 1987 and 2022. If the provisions of Question 5 had been in effect, it would have triggered refunds 24 times in the last 40 years.

 

They add that this would also have economic benefits by reducing the high tax burdens that cause residents and businesses to leave the state.

 

It is opposed by Protect Massachusetts Future, the Massachusetts Democratic Party, Progressive Mass, SIEU, Massachusetts Teachers Association, and other organizations and officials. The main website for that campaign is No on 5, Protect Massachusetts' Future.

 

They contend that the initiative is funded by wealthy individuals and businesses who it would disproportionately benefit. It states: "Question 5 would impose a restrictive cap on state tax collections and investment that would lead to repeated cuts to public services, forcing Massachusetts to slash billions of dollars in public spending over the next decade ... If Question 5 took effect, local communities across the state could be regularly forced to lay off thousands of teachers, police officers, and firefighters, making our communities less safe. Hospitals, nursing homes, schools and colleges could be forced to close their doors, leaving us all worse off."

 

Opponents also contend it would "trigger the largest budget cuts in the years following an economic recession, when state spending to stimulate the economy and support struggling residents is most necessary."

 

Question 6: This would create a Nature for All Fund allocated for natural resource conservation. The revenue would come from a portion of existing state sales taxes on the sale and use of sporting goods and recreational vehicles, and the use of

golf courses. 

 

A Yes vote would establish this fund; a No vote would not.

 

This would not create new taxes but would allocate existing collections for these purposes. The proposed law would allow the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and a special board to spend the money in the Nature for All Fund

for natural resource conservation including protection of land for open space, farms, forests and water quality, the creation, improvement, and management of parks, trails, greenspaces or outdoor recreation access, and culturally significant sites of indigenous people.

 

It is supported by a coalition of about 130 land, water, and conservation organizations and a variety of businesses, as well as other citizens and politicians including Gov. Maura Healey and former Gov. Deval Patrick. The Massachusetts Democratic Party has also endorsed it.

 

The proponents' website Nature for Mass contends that the fund would be just 0.16 percent of the overall state budget but would provide as much as $100 million a year. 

 

"Question 6 is our chance to protect clean water, healthy forests and wildlife habitats, more trails and parks, and access to the outdoors and nature for everyone in Massachusetts — without new taxes."

 

There is no organized opposition, although there are critics, including the Massachusetts Republican Party, which has recommended a No vote. A summary of opponents' arguments in the voters' guide contends it would create "an unstable fiscal framework."

 

The opposing position is that it "would rely on existing state revenue streams that are currently allocated to other ongoing programs and priorities … and other state initiatives." It also points out that the funds may not automatically be allocated to this because the Legislature retains exclusive authority over appropriations decisions.

 

Question 7: This would allow single-family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet or more in residential areas, subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects of those homes. 

 

A Yes vote would direct individual communities throughout the state to follow this guideline. A No vote would make no change to the law relative to building single-family homes.

 

In this ballot question, both supporters and opponents share similar underlying goals of increasing the supply of housing by making it legally possible and financially feasible to build homes on smaller lots. The primary differences are over this specific

strategy to achieve this.

 

The proposed law would allow cities and towns to "reasonably regulate" certain aspects of those single-family homes, including their height, distance from neighboring buildings, open space, parking requirements, and whether they can be rented out on a short-term basis. The proposed law would also allow the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to issue guidance or regulations to administer the proposed law.

 

A primary sponsor is Legalize Starter Homes a diverse coalition, ranging from of affordable-housing and social-justice advocates ranging from Progressive Massachusetts and the Boston Democratic Socialists of America to pro-business groups such as local chambers of commerce, the Massachusetts Association of Realtors and Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Massachusetts. It is also supported by numerous politicians and office holders, including Gov. Maura Healey. The Democratic Party supports it.

 

The Legalize Starter Homes website states: "Many municipalities currently require tracts of land much larger than 5,000 square feet to build a home. Because land is so expensive in much of Massachusetts, allowing homes on smaller lots will reduce the cost of homes for buyers and will make it so that developers don't have to build giant McMansions just to justify the cost of assembling the land. Thus, legalizing starter homes in Massachusetts will result in smaller homes, more affordable homes, and more homes in general."

 

They contend that this reform would generate an estimated 2,200 to 5,700 new homes per year. They also cite a recent public opinion poll that 63 percent of Massachusetts voters support the measure.

 

There is opposition, including the Massachusetts Republican Party, and Americans for Tax Reform and the Massachusetts Municipal Association, a non-profit organization that advocates for and supports local governments.

 

Opponents claims that requiring municipalities to adopt this lot size is contrary to the principle of local control in the Home Rule Amendment in the state Constitution. They also caution that the proposed measure does not contain guarantees the homes would be affordable and could enable developers to use it to push through unpopular subdivisions, and expensive homes on smaller lots. They contend that a more effective approach would be collaboration with the state that allows local governments flexibility to devise solutions, including smaller lot sizes, based on local needs and circumstances.

 

The MMA website contains a position statement written by its Executive Director and CEO Adam Chapdelaine.

 

"On the surface, Question 7 may sound appealing. … A claim of good intentions, however, does not equal sound public policy. A closer look reveals that Question 7 is a blunt instrument that overrides local governance, strains infrastructure,

and fails to guarantee affordable options for residents. … Erasing local lot-size standards strips municipal governments of an important tool they use to balance residential growth with local services, public safety and environmental protection."

 

Question 8: This would prohibit the sale of marijuana for recreational use by repealing the current laws that exist after voters approved a legalization referendum in 2016. 

 

A Yes vote would prohibit the legalization, regulation, and taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana and change the penalties for possession; a No vote would make no change to the current laws relative to marijuana.

 

The proposed measure would also significantly limit the amount of marijuana adults can legally possess or transfer ownership to one ounce or less (or no more than 5 grams of concentrate). It would impose a civil penalty of $100 and forfeiture of

marijuana for the possession of between one- and two-ounces of marijuana.

 

It would continue to allow marijuana for prescribed medical purposes. While commercial sales of recreational cannabis would be prohibited, current cannabis businesses could apply to become a licensed medical marijuana dispensary. The petition has many other provisions, which can be viewed on the state ballot guide website.

 

The official ballot committee to promote this measure is the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts. It doesn't name specific supporters but describe the coalition as "individuals, medical professionals, mental health professionals, law enforcement, veterans, elected officials, recovery groups, business owners, and community groups." 

 

The bulk of the $3.7 million raised from 16 donations is from SAM Action Inc., the lobbying arm of the nonprofit Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

 

It contends that experience and research since legalization has shown the detrimental impacts of marijuana use on health. They cite figures that say 42 percent of drivers in fatal crashes tested positive for THC from marijuana, and that there was a 65 percent increase in the number of driver's license revocations for drugged driving in Massachusetts, which was reported in 2019. It also cites lax enforcement of product-safety standards.

 

The fatal crash numbers are based on a five-year regional study done in Ohio, which also states a key takeaway is that legalization was not a significant factor in the findings. 

 

They also contend that that after legalizing commercial sales in Massachusetts, rates of cannabis use and cannabis-related disorders disproportionately increased among teenagers, particularly those with psychiatric conditions, though national and Cannabis Control Commission surveys have found teen use has decreased even as adult use has gone up. They also argue that any taxes raised are offset by societal expenses including increased healthcare, lost productivity, and crime (like DUIs). They add that the costs for business owners have increased from higher rates of workplace injuries, increased healthcare costs, and higher turnover.

 

The campaign opposing the measure is led by Stop the Repeal. Opponents include the Democratic Party and numerous officeholders including U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Edward J. Markey, and Gov. Maura Healey. (The Republican Party has taken no position.) The Lee Select Board unanimously adopted a resolution opposing it. Opponents also include Progressive Massachusetts and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, among

others.

 

 

If the measure passes, they contend that it would lead to a black market again, needlessly criminalize many residents, and divert law enforcement resources. They point out that in fiscal year 2025, taxation on recreational marijuana raised

approximately $280 million in state revenue and $50 million in local revenue. They also estimated that the industry has created numerous business opportunities and 20,000 jobs across the state.

 

The No on 8 website states their position succinctly: "All of the jobs and tax revenue created by the cannabis industry here? Gone. Your ability to access safe, regulated, legal recreational cannabis in Massachusetts? Gone. This is an existential threat to the industry, the 20,000 local jobs it has created, and the millions of dollars in tax revenue going to municipalities and the state."

 

Question 9: This is a referendum on an existing state law Chapter 135, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, which was approved by the House and Senate in 2024 that increased the regulation of firearms. The referendum is the result of efforts of opponents to challenge and roll back the 2024 law. It is an opportunity for voters to approve or reject it.

 

A Yes vote would keep the law; a No vote would repeal it and return gun laws to their previous status.

 

The 2024 law requires all firearms (except antiques and relics) to have serial numbers. It imposes penalties for possessing, creating, and transferring untraceable "ghost gun" firearms, such as weapons made by 3D printing or assembled from

individually-ordered parts. It also changes firearms licensing, including requiring an individual to be 21 years of age to own semiautomatic rifles or shotguns. The law changes the definition of "machine gun" to include bump stocks, trigger cranks, Glock switches and auto sears among the devices whose possession and use are subject to penalties. It expands the definition of "silencer" to include the parts used to construct a silencer. 

 

Chapter 135 bans modifications that turn semi-automatic weapons, which require the user to pull the trigger for each shot, into automatic weapons, which can fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. The law clarifies how to determine

whether a firearm is an assault-style weapon and the circumstances under which a person may continue to possess assault-style weapons and large capacity feeding devices they already own.

 

It allows local licensing authorities to request prior license and permit information from the state, and access petitions for involuntary mental health commitments. It also adds school administrators and licensed healthcare providers as parties permitted to ask a court to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order — requiring an individual to surrender or relinquish their firearm licenses, permits, and firearms — if an individual is a present danger to themselves or others.

 

A primary proponent of a Yes vote to retain these laws is Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts. Supporters include numerous state and local officials and Congress members including Gov. Maura Healey and Attorney General Andrea Campbell. The Massachusetts Democratic Party supports a Yes Vote. It has also received the endorsement of other organizations. (For a complete list see the website.)

 

Proponents contend that the modernization law is crucial for necessary and effective gun-safety measures in the state. According to a statement on the Yes website: "Gun violence is preventable — and Massachusetts is leading the way. We

have one of the lowest gun death rates in the country because we've taken action with an effective combination of strong gun safety laws, community-led solutions, and evidence-based research. The law our extremist opponents are seeking to repeal combines all of these proven approaches — giving us a vital, updated set of tools to prevent gun violence in all its forms. Because of this law, the Giffords Gun Law Scorecard has given Massachusetts an A grade two years in a row."

 

A primary proponent for a No vote is the Civil Rights Coalition, a ballot committee that was officially formed in 2024 and organized a petition for the referendum. The coalition is chaired by Toby Leary and describes itself as "a nonpartisan network of gun owners, veterans, parents, healthcare workers, police officers, and civil liberties advocates. "Other supporters include Gun Owners Action League, Massachusetts Trappers Association, Mass Conservation Alliance, Old Colony Sportsmen's Association and Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. The Massachusetts Republican Party recommends a No Vote, but a list of politicians and officeholders is difficult to locate.

 

Proponents of a No vote contend that the law violates basic constitutional rights and is ineffective because law-abiding gun owners will comply, but criminals and others who would use them dangerously will not. 

 

The coalition's website contends that the law contains "sweeping mandates that turn law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight and force honest citizens to reapply for rights they've held for decades to comply with confusing, burdensome rules that violate due process and privacy. … The law requires registration of all lawfully owned firearms, creating a centralized database of lawful gun owners in Massachusetts. This sets a dangerous precedent for the government to be collecting this data and raises concerns about the privacy and security of firearm owners' personal information."