Voters' Guide to 2026 Massachusetts Ballot Questions

State and local governments collect a lot of information—about tax receipts, about business licenses, about registered lobbyists, and a great deal more.

Much of this government-collected information is considered public, and Massachusetts has a public records law that allows interested residents to obtain privacy-protecting copies or extracts. This lets journalists get information about state programs and helps citizens learn about contracting decisions in their communities.

Our public records rules apply to state agencies, as well as every city and town. But both the state Legislature and the Governor's office are exempt. You can ask them for information, but they don't have to respond.

Question 1 would change that, requiring the Legislature and the Governor's office to share certain kinds of information upon request. Its impact, however, will be limited by explicit exemptions for certain types of records as well as constitutional questions about the independence of the Legislature.

As part of our commitment to help voters understand state ballot questions, we have reviewed public records laws in other states and spoken with experts and advocates on both sides of the issue.

We found that:

• Massachusetts is one of just two states where the Legislature and the Governor's office are considered exempt from public records law. But there are few—if any—legislatures around the country that freely and broadly comply with records requests.
• Question 1 would modestly improve people's ability to obtain information from the Legislature and the Governor's office—particularly when seeking financial and administrative details such as contracts with vendors, spending records, and settlement agreements.
• By contrast, requests relating to constituent communications or policy-making (including conversations with lobbyists) would overwhelmingly be blocked. Question 1 has explicit exemptions to safeguard this material. More broadly, any such requests would face privacy checks already built into the public records law—as well as legal and constitutional limitations.
• The Massachusetts Legislature is currently working on a bill that would explicitly supersede this ballot question, opening the Governor's office to requests while codifying a narrower approach for the Legislature. If that passes, Question 1 might be immaterial.

In the sections that follow, we discuss these and other issues in detail, including a summary of the ballot question, background on the current public records system, the potential impact of a yes vote, and the strongest arguments on both sides.

View the Full Report on Ballot Question 1

Massachusetts provides lawyers for people who can't afford to defend themselves against criminal charges. Most of the time, those lawyers are private-sector defense attorneys who specialize in helping low-income defendants. But the state also employs several hundred public defenders in an agency called the Committee for Public Counsel Services, or CPCS.

Unlike nearly all other state workers, public defenders and other employees at CPCS are not allowed to form a union, so their working conditions are controlled by supervisors and the lawyers' salaries set by the Legislature.

Question 2 would grant CPCS workers the right to unionize, likely leading to improved pay and treatment. At the same time, having to bargain with the CPCS union could complicate the state's ability to flexibly serve low-income clients and potentially increase reliance on private-sector public defenders.

As part of our commitment to help voters understand state ballot questions, we have analyzed the potential impact and spoken with experts on this issue.

We found that:

• Several other states already allow state-employed public defenders to form unions. And the path to unionization in Question 2 matches approaches that have successfully allowed other Massachusetts state workers to unionize.
• Unionization creates real trade-offs. For instance, any pay increase won at the bargaining table would put pressure on CPCS's budget, likely requiring it to employ fewer workers or draw additional dollars from state coffers.
• Question 2 creates a multi-part bargaining structure. Most state employees negotiate directly with the Governor's representatives, whereas CPCS workers would first negotiate with agency management—and then require sign-off from the Governor on funding-related parts of the deal. This setup could produce delays and tension.
• Question 2 is separate from the 2025 pay crisis and work stoppage among private-sector indigent defense attorneys in Massachusetts, as only state employees would be eligible for this union. However, the demands of a CPCS union could shape the state's future reliance on private-sector lawyers.

In the sections that follow, we discuss these and other issues in detail, including a summary of the ballot question, a comparison with other states, and the strongest arguments on both sides.

View the full report for Ballot Question 2

Most major elections in Massachusetts work the same way: First, eligible candidates compete to win the Democratic or Republican Party primary. Then, a few months later, primary winners face off in a general election contest, which can also include some independent or third-party candidates.

Question 3 would upend this whole approach to state elections. Instead of starting with conventions and party-specific primaries, all candidates who get the required signatures would compete in a single, all-party, open primary. Then, the top two vote-getters in this open primary would move to the general election.

In a state as blue as Massachusetts, the top two finishers in the all-party primary could often be Democrats—and the general election would thus feature two candidates from the same political party.

This is part of the point of this top-two primary setup. Today, the two most popular candidates often square off in a party primary, when turnout is lower and less representative. Under Question 3, they could meet on election day, when turnout and interest are peaking.

At the same time, moving to an all-party primary does mean eliminating party-specific primaries and curbing the traditional role of political parties when it comes to candidate vetting and selection.

As part of our commitment to help voters understand state ballot questions, we have reviewed the latest research and spoken with experts and advocates on both sides of the issue.

We found that:

• Question 3 would change the competitive dynamics of Massachusetts elections. Election day would feature more high-profile campaigns between the two most appealing candidates, and more voters would have a say, since more people vote in the general election.
• Two states already use versions of the top-two primary system envisioned in Question 3. Limited evidence suggests this approach may modestly reduce polarization and slightly increase primary election turnout—though it also seems to attract more money into political races.
• The power of state political parties would greatly diminish. While Question 3 would still allow party endorsements to appear on Massachusetts primary ballots, the parties would no longer set nomination rules or control the primary process.
• Whether Question 3 would increase the number of competitive races is unclear. Right now, many Massachusetts candidates run unopposed, particularly in campaigns for the state legislature.
• These changes would take effect in 2028 and would not apply to presidential campaigns or municipal elections.

In the sections that follow, we discuss these and other issues in detail, including a summary of the ballot question, background on the lack of competition in our electoral system, the potential impact of a yes vote, and the strongest arguments on both sides.

View the full report for Ballot Question 3

Every Massachusetts voter needs to register before casting a ballot. It's not a complicated process, just a matter of affirming you're a citizen and verifying a local address. But it has to be done in advance, and it can be a hurdle for busy state residents.

One way to lower this hurdle is by letting people register at their polling place on election day—something nearly half of states already do.

But Massachusetts hasn't embraced election-day registration. Under current law, citizens must register at least 10 days in advance.

Question 4 would change that, allowing people to register on election day for nearly all elections starting in 2028.

As part of our commitment to help voters understand state ballot questions, we have analyzed the likely impact of Question 4 and spoken with experts and advocates on both sides of the issue.

We found that:

• Question 4 will make registration easier for movers and busy residents, but the overall impact is likely to be small. Nearly all likely voters in Massachusetts are already registered thanks to a system of automatic registration that signs people up when they interact with the RMV or other state agencies.
• Implementing Question 4 mostly falls to individual cities and towns, which currently handle related tasks like accepting provisional ballots but will need to develop new processes for election-day registration—without any new state money.
• Voting fraud is extremely rare, including in states that already have same-day registration. But Question 4 does make it slightly more complicated to detect and prevent voters from casting ballots at multiple sites.

In the sections that follow, we discuss these and other issues in detail, including a summary of the ballot question, background on our current voting system, the potential impact of a yes vote, and the strongest arguments on both sides.

View the full report on Ballot Question 4

When tax collections spike in Massachusetts, some of the surplus is supposed to be sent back to taxpayers, according to the terms of a refund law called Chapter 62F.

But since Chapter 62F was first introduced in a 1986 ballot question, refunds have only been triggered two times, once at the outset and then again during the Covid-era stock market boom.

Question 5 would rewrite the rules for 62F, linking refunds more strictly to annual revenue growth. This approach would make refunds more frequent but also more haphazard, sending large checks to taxpayers when tax receipts are strong but also sometimes when they're not.

As part of our commitment to help voters understand state ballot questions, we have analyzed the likely impact of Question 5 and spoken with experts and advocates on both sides of the issue.

We found that:

• Question 5 would dramatically increase the frequency and scale of 62F refunds, triggering 2-4 times as many refunds and returning 2-7 times as much money to taxpayers. Taxpayers would receive roughly $200-$250 per year, accounting for both refund and non-refund years.
• By increasing the size and frequency of 62F refunds, the ballot question reduces state revenue as much as an income tax cut of roughly 0.15-0.2 percentage points.
• The idea behind Chapter 62F was to provide refunds when tax collections are unusually strong, but Question 5 doesn't always do that. It has an unusual feedback loop that undermines the link between revenue and refund size, and it provides little protection against refunds when tax receipts are at historically low levels.
• The Massachusetts Legislature is currently working on a bill that would add new 62F refund requirements. If it passes, the impact of Question 5 might be more limited.

In the sections that follow, we discuss these and other issues in detail, including a summary of the ballot question, background on the current setup of 62F, the potential impact of a yes vote, and the strongest arguments on both sides.

View the full report on Ballot Question 5

Cities and towns lead the way when it comes to building playgrounds, beautifying parks, or protecting fragile ecosystems in Massachusetts. But the state is a vital partner, providing both dollars and technical guidance to help preserve natural spaces and support outdoor recreation.

This state support for recreation and conservation is chiefly funded through general tax revenue and state-backed bonds, rather than a dedicated stream of tax dollars.

Question 6 would create a new earmark for conservation and recreation, funneling a small portion of sales tax receipts to a special spending account.

However, Question 6 would not compel the Legislature to increase overall spending in these areas nor dictate how the earmarked money is ultimately used.

As part of our commitment to help voters understand state ballot questions, we have analyzed the budgetary impact and spoken with experts and advocates on both sides of the issue.

We found that:

• Question 6 doesn't raise any new money. It merely earmarks some existing tax dollars—specifically, sales taxes from sporting goods stores, recreational-vehicle dealers, and golf courses.
• The earmark is relatively small, at roughly $65 million. Currently, the state spends around $400 million each year on recreation and conservation efforts.
• Reaching the state's climate goals may require increased spending on conservation, and the dedicated fund created by Question 6 could enable that.
• Nothing in this ballot question compels lawmakers to increase spending on conservation or recreation by the earmarked amount. They can use the earmarked money to pay for existing programs or divert it for unrelated uses if they choose.

In the sections that follow, we discuss these and other issues in detail, including a summary of the ballot question, the state's current efforts to support conservation and recreation, the challenges of using earmarks to shape legislative spending, and the strongest arguments on both sides.

View the full report on Ballot Question 6

Helping Massachusetts families find and purchase homes is a leading state priority. Yet would-be home buyers continue to face crushing prices and limited options.

Question 7, colloquially known as the "Starter Home" initiative, aims to increase home construction by overriding certain local zoning restrictions. If passed, it would automatically allow single-family homes to be built wherever there is adequate space, ample road access, and existing water and sewer service.

Nothing in Question 7 ensures that new homes will be constructed—or that they will be starter-sized. And the new rules would limit the ability of cities and towns to shape neighborhoods and decide where homes can be built.

As part of our commitment to help voters understand state ballot questions, we have analyzed the likely impact of Question 7 and spoken with experts and advocates on both sides of the issue.

We found that:

• Question 7 would generate roughly 750 new homes per year. That is our central estimate, but the analysis involves a lot of uncertainty, and our modeling suggests a plausible range from 350 to 1,200 per year.
• New construction at this scale would have a real but modest impact on overall production, increasing single-family home building by roughly 15 percent and overall housing development by roughly 5 percent.
• Cities and towns would lose some real authority over roughly 850,000 parcels whose construction rules would now be governed by Question 7. However, most of these parcels already allow single-family homes or additional development, leaving roughly 200,000 whose status would be changed if the initiative passes.
• Suburbs would see the biggest increase in home building under Question 7, especially Boston-area suburbs that already have broad sewer infrastructure and lots that are large enough to split.
• The Legislature is currently considering a proposal to allow duplexes by right on any parcel that permits single-family homes. This could create a mutually reinforcing dynamic, where parcels freed from local zoning restrictions under Question 7 are automatically eligible for duplex siting, not just single-family structures.

In the sections that follow, we discuss these and other issues in detail, including a summary of the ballot question, background on home construction rules, the potential impact of a yes vote, and the strongest arguments on both sides.

View the full report on Ballot Question 7

In 2016, Massachusetts voters passed a ballot question to legalize the sale and use of recreational marijuana. Now, a decade later, Question 8 provides an "undo" button, a chance to halt legal marijuana sales and declare an end to the state's ten-year experiment.

If Question 8 passes, recreational marijuana sales would become illegal and the state's marijuana industry would be dismantled—meaning the closure of many retail stores, the termination of our safety testing regime for recreational cannabis, and the loss of industry-generated tax revenue.

In the resulting world, it would be a crime to sell marijuana for recreational use. Small-scale marijuana possession could trigger fines, but no jail time. And the state could still support sales of medical marijuana.

As part of our commitment to help voters understand state ballot questions, we have reviewed the latest research and spoken with experts and advocates on both sides of the issue.

We found that:

• Massachusetts is home to a relatively mature marijuana industry, generating billions of dollars in sales along with a limited but valuable amount of tax revenue for cities and the state.
• Marijuana use can have real, sometimes irreversible harms—especially for young people. Serious risks like addiction and psychosis are increasingly well-established by research.
• Eliminating recreational sales would likely reduce overall marijuana use. But it would also increase black market activity—and the policing necessary to curb it.
• While Question 8 explicitly allows for medical marijuana, the state currently lacks a robust system for licensing and overseeing that industry.
• No state has ever repealed marijuana legalization, so there's little real-world evidence for voters to lean on.

In the sections that follow, we discuss these and other issues in detail, including a summary of the ballot question, background on marijuana legalization, the potential impact of a yes vote, and the strongest arguments on both sides.

View the full report on Ballot Question 8

In 2024, Massachusetts expanded its gun rules as part of a comprehensive gun safety law. And most of the provisions of that law are now in effect.

Question 9 would repeal this 2024 law, restoring the older but still substantial regulations and restrictions that existed beforehand.

A yes vote maintains the new, tighter rules, while a no vote restores the gun control rules in place before the 2024 law took effect.

As part of our commitment to help voters understand state ballot questions, we have analyzed the likely impact of Question 9 and spoken with experts and advocates on both sides of the issue.

We found that:

• Unlike most ballot questions, "yes" on Question 9 is a vote for the status quo, keeping the 2024 law in place; "no" is a vote for change, reintroducing the pre-2024 rules.
• The 2024 law closed some genuine gaps in prior state rules, allowing Massachusetts to track home-assembled and other so-called "ghost guns" and adding school administrators, healthcare providers, and police officers to the list of people who can seek "red flag" orders removing guns from people who pose a risk.
• Lawful gun owners face some new obligations under the law, including registering all firearms with the state.
• If the 2024 law is repealed, Massachusetts would still have its former rules—already considered among the strictest in the country. The state would still require gun licenses and safety training, track firearm sales, and allow family-initiated red flag petitions, among other protections.
• It's too soon to know the full benefits and drawbacks of the 2024 law, but two forces limit the potential safety gains: Massachusetts already had relatively low levels of gun violence before 2024, and some provisions may not survive constitutional challenges.

In the sections that follow, we discuss these and other issues in detail, including a summary of the ballot question, background on the 2024 gun safety law, the potential impact of yes and no votes, and the strongest arguments on both sides.

View the full report on Ballot Question 9