By Beth David, Editor
Massachusetts voters will face a whopping nine ballot questions in the general election on Tuesday, 11/3/26.
Questions 1-8 are laws proposed by initiative petition. If passed by the voters, these proposals would become law. Question 9 is a referendum on an existing law. Voters are asked if they approve of the existing law. If a majority vote “yes,” the law will remain in place. If a majority vote “no,” the law will be repealed.
For the online guide to each ballot question, visit https://ma.omniballot.us/sites/25/vg/app/vig/voter-guide/info on the Secretary of State’s website. Information includes everything that is in the red book that was mailed to all voters in the Commonwealth: summaries, arguments, legislative reports, and full text of the laws. Visit VoteInMA.com for other election information.
Ballot Question 1
Q1 would expand the public records law to include the governor’s office and the legislature. On the local level, almost all correspondence by officials is considered a public record. Mass. is one of only two states that exempts the legislature and governor.
The argument against the change is mostly centered around constituent communications to lawmakers, with the contention that those should be private. No organized group has opposed this Ballot Question.
A “yes” vote makes the records public.
Ballot Question 2
Q2 would allow employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to form a union. These are the attorneys who are appointed to defend people who cannot afford to pay for one.
No organized group has opposed this Ballot Question.
The “yes” vote will allow the CPCS to form a union, if they choose to, it does not create the union
Ballot Question 3
Q3 would eliminate the primary voting system we have now and create an all-party primary, also known as a “top-two” primary or a “jungle primary.” Instead of voters choosing a ballot for their party and voting for one of those candidates, the primary would have all candidates listed and the top two vote getters would advance to the general election. California and Washington have similar systems.
Those in favor of the change say the current system favors insiders, candidates can be blocked at party conventions; two-thirds of the Mass. legislature is running unopposed, allowing them to take voters for granted.
Opponents argue that two candidates from the same party could be the only choices on the ballot in the general election; the all-party primary favors wealthy, self-funded candidates and shuts out others from access to party resources.
Ballot Question 4
Q4 would allow eligible citizens to register to vote or update their address on election day. Proof of residency and a written oath are required.
The change will make it easier for people who move frequently, like young people and renters, to vote.
The arguments against include that election officials will not have enough time to verify a voter’s identify, residence, or duplicate registration.
A “yes” vote will allow same day voter registration. A “no’ vote will make no change to the law.
Ballot Question 5
Q5 would limit how much revenue the state can collect, tying it to the amount of revenue from the previous year, plus average wage and salary growth.
Proponents argue that the change will put money into the pockets of average citizens. They contend it will not cut state spending for important services. Excess revenue would be returned to taxpayers.
Opponents contend that the reduction in state revenue will result in cuts to schools, healthcare, affordable housing and public safety. They also argue that only millionaires will get frequent rebates.
The statement of fiscal consequences warns that the limitations would reduce the amount of money for local aid and the state’s stabilization fund.
Ballot Question 6
Q6 would establish a Nature for All Fund created from 50% of sales tax on sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses. The fund would be used to protect water, land and wildlife.
Proponents of the law say as much as $100 million could be raised to protect the environment, prevent flooding and storm damage, and improve greenspaces for public use. They note it does not raise taxes or create a tax.
The statement of fiscal consequences states the law would divert tens of millions of dollars in tax receipts that are already supporting the state budget.
Ballot Question 7
Q7 would allow single-family homes to be built on lots as small as 5,000 square feet statewide.
Proponents argue that the new law will create affordable homes, making it easier for young people to buy a home, and for older people to downsize.
Opponents argue that the law would override local planning and force housing on smaller lots regardless of the conditions in existing neighborhoods. Local officials understand their communities best and should be the ones making decisions, not forced into a once-size-fits-all mandate.
Ballot Question 8
Q8 would prohibit the sale of recreational marijuana in the state, and change the possession limits and penalties.
Proponents argue that since recreational marijuana was legalized in Mass., there has been an increase in car accidents due to abuse, more workplace injuries, and links to mental health conditions. The sale of medical marijuana and possession of small amounts will be legal.
Opponents argue that the law would send marijuana back to the illicit market where there are no safeguards. It would shut down hundreds of businesses, kill jobs, and eliminate state revenue.
The statement of fiscal consequences says the sale of recreational marijuana raised $280 million in state revenue and $50 million in local revenue in FY25.
Ballot Question 9
Q9 would repeal the gun law that has been in place since 2024, passing by overwhelming majorities in both the house and senate. The new law places a number of new restrictions on owning and carrying firearms in the state. Most notably, the law prohibits the carrying of firearms in all government buildings, including town and city halls. It bans ghost guns, outlaws devices that turn semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons.
Proponents of the law say Mass. has a gun death rate 70% lower than the national average, and maintaining the policies in the law will continue to drive the rate of gun violence down.
Opponents state that Mass. already had some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The huge law is “bureaucratic overreach” that is confusing and treats “harmless historical re-enactors and antique hobbyists like criminals.” Legislation should focus on violent criminals, not limiting citizens’ civil rights.
•••
Click here to download the 9/24/26 issue: 09-24-26 POW-MIA
Support local journalism, donate to the Neighb News with PayPal
