Your ballot for this November’s election has nine statewide ballot questions. In September voters were mailed an Information for Voters booklet from the Office of the Secretary of State with summaries and arguments for and against each question.
Those “for” and “against” arguments are written by proponents and opponents of the question, and are not checked for accuracy or truthfulness by the secretary of the state – one reason The Cambridge Somerville Independent provides this article. The state Legislature had the opportunity to pass these items into law but did not do so by the deadline of July 31 after review by their Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions.
There are no campaign contribution limits on ballot questions. Chances are, the more ads you see for or against a particular ballot question, the more campaign contributions are going into it.
The Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis, in addition to providing a summary of each question, allows you to note your preferences and download or print out your choices to bring to the voting booth.
In addition to the nine questions everyone sees, some neighborhoods get a 10th: Cambridge voters in the 25th Middlesex (held by Marjorie Decker) and 29th Middlesex (held by Steve Owens) House districts will have a nonbinding question on stipend reform, described below.
1. Expanding public records law
Current public records law applies to every city and town official and every state agency and covers communications, emails and policy documents – but exempts the state Legislature and Governor’s Office. This ballot question expands the law to include them. For example, if a state legislator has harassed or abused employees and complaints have been filed, the record of the complaint and any settlement would be available, with victims’ names and other identifying information redacted, if the ballot question passes.
Massachusetts is the only state that excludes the governor and Legislature, which impedes journalists and other organizations who rely on the public records law to get information.
A “yes” vote expands the law to include the Legislature and governor. A “no” vote does not make changes.
2. Collective bargaining for public defenders
This allows public defenders, who are assigned to cases of defendants unable to afford a lawyer, to negotiate with the state Committee for Public Counsel Services Employees. Public defenders in Massachusetts are paid the lowest of any state in New England. The committee recently proposed a pay increase; governor Maura Healey’s fiscal year 2026 budget did not include money for the increase.
A “yes” vote allows those employees to negotiate pay. A “no” vote leaves the situation as it is, without the ability of those employees to negotiate with their employer.
3. State primary elections
The proposal replaces primaries by political party (e.g., Democrat and Republican) with a single primary open to all candidates. The two candidates getting the most votes would appear on the general state election ballot. Supporters claim this increases voter turnout in the primaries and will be good for smaller parties such as the Greens and Libertarians. Opponents claim this disfavors candidates with limited financial resources and increases the influence of money in elections. Some believe ranked-choice voting, used in Cambridge for City Council and School Committee elections, is a better solution. The Coalition for Healthy Democracy, author of the ballot question, has received more than $1.7 million in donations and in-kind contributions from two people with ties to private-equity firms.
A “yes” vote replaces party primaries (including Democrat and Republican) with a single primary open to all candidates of qualified political parties, with only the two candidates with the most votes appearing on November general election ballots. A “no” vote leaves primary elections as they are, in which third-party and independent candidates can appear on the general election ballot.
4. Election Day voter registration
This allows people to register to vote or change their address on Election Day, providing proof of residency. It allows for provisional ballots for people not providing proof of residency, who must provide proof of residency within six days. Recall that the primary election this year was on Sept. 1, a day many people move between apartments. Those who moved would have had to register to vote in their new address at least 10 days before that.
A “yes” vote allows voter registrations on Election Day. A “no” vote makes no changes, meaning people need to have registered to vote 10 days before election day.
5. State revenue limit and rebate
The state has a law, Chapter 62F, that provides for taxpayer refunds under certain circumstances.
This ballot proposal changes the law significantly to limit the amount of revenue (e.g., taxes, receipts, surtax, penalties, interest) the state could collect in a year. The limit would be calculated based on the revenue collected the prior year plus the percentage of the average growth in wages and salaries over the previous three years. The limit calculation adds the “millionaire’s tax,” which is not subject to the revenue limit, thus undoing a portion of the Fair Share Amendment (“millionaire’s tax”) that voters passed in 2022.
The proposal reduces significantly the amount of revenue that could be collected over time, because it decreases the revenue limit but doesn’t explicitly provide for increasing revenue in better economic times. It could also cause refunds in periods of weak revenue growth, typically when the state needs more money.
A “yes” vote provides a limit to the amount of money collected in a year and provide a refund to the taxpayers the following year. A “no” vote leaves the current law with no changes.
6. Natural resources conservation fund
This places revenue from taxes on the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses into a natural resource conservation fund instead of into the state’s general fund. The funds could be used for natural resource conservation by state agencies, cities and towns, public charities and tribal governments. It also creates a 15-member board to create regulations and guidelines for the fund.
A “yes” vote creates a special fund for natural resource conservation and dedicates specific revenues to that fund, decreasing the amount of money in the state’s general fund by that amount. A “no” vote leaves things as they are, with those taxes remaining in the state’s General Fund.
7. Single-family homes
This allows single-family houses to be built on lots of at least 5,000 square feet with at least 50 feet frontage as long as public sewer and water access is available, subject to reasonable regulations such as setback and height. This is smaller than the minimum areas in some zones in cities and towns. Supporters say this can increase the number of houses built. The Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis estimates this could result in an additional 350 to 1,200 single-family homes built per year. Opponents say it can change the character neighborhoods.
A “yes” vote implements allowable smaller lot sizes for single-family houses. A “no” vote leaves restrictions as they are, which can vary by city and town.
8. Prohibit retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana
The proposed law repeals laws allowing for the retail sale of marijuana, shutting down an industry and part of the state economy. It permits small amounts, up to 1 ounce, to be possessed by people 21 or older (currently allowed for people 18 years or older). It makes possession of 2 ounces or less by younger people against the law. It places limits on the potency of medical marijuana. It repeals the right of adults to cultivate at home.
A “yes” vote ends retail sales of marijuana and enacts other restrictions. A “no” vote makes no changes to the current law.
9. Firearms regulation
This question asks voters to support or repeal a gun control law from July 2024. That law included such things as updating the criteria for “red-flag” orders (for people considered dangerous who shouldn’t have guns), regulating ghost guns (those without legally mandated serial numbers) and changing licensing and training requirements.
Some of the changes if “no” votes prevail:
School administrators, licensed health care providers and police officers would no longer be permitted to ask a court to require a person who is a danger to themselves or others to surrender their firearm licenses, permits and firearms.
Penalties would be removed for ghost guns.
People 18 to 21 years old could own semiautomatic rifles.
People would be allowed to carry guns into government buildings, polling locations and schools.
Dealers wouldn’t have to check criminal records of potential employees.
A “yes” vote keeps the 2024 law in place. A “no” vote repeals the 2024 law, loosening gun controls.
10. Stipend reform in the Legislature
A statewide ballot question on reform of extra pay for legislators in the form of stipends does not appear on the ballot this year. This nonbinding question appears in seven districts, including two in Cambridge. The full text of the question is: “Shall the representative for this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation or rules to reduce the House speaker’s and Senate president’s control over state legislators’ stipends (extra pay) and to provide stipends only to legislators who do significant extra work that is transparent and accountable to the public?”
All state legislators get an annual salary of $82,000 plus a travel subsidy. In addition, the chairs and vice chairs of the 55 committees appointed by the Speaker of the House and the president of the Senate get extra pay of about $7,000 to $40,000. A 2024 Boston Globe article reported that 12 of the committees had no bills assigned to them and conducted no public hearings during the previous two-year legislative session. One senator got $61,000 in stipends for chairing two of those 12 committees. The speaker and Senate president and 20 other leaders also get stipends ranging up to $119,000.
A “yes” vote instructs your state representative to vote in favor of legislation or rules to reform the current stipend system. A “no” vote will not instruct your state representative to vote in favor of reforming the current stipend system.
The writer is a a member of Act on Mass, a group that has endorsed stipend reform. He collected signatures for a stipend reform question to appear on ballots.
