nine statewide ballot measures.

Jump to a ballot question: #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9

Mass. Ballot Question #1: Expanding the Mass. Public Records Law

Question 1 is a proposal to make most records held by the Massachusetts Legislature and Office of the Governor available under the Massachusetts Public Records Law.

Should the governor's office and Legislature be subject to Massachusetts' public records laws? That's Question 1 on the 2026 ballot -- here's what a yes or no vote would mean.

Voting yes would make most records held by the legislature and governor’s office public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Voting no would make no change to the law.

The exemptions are very broad and may limit the effectiveness of this proposal, according to Evan Horowitz of the Tufts University Center for State Policy Analysis.

"In fact, there are so many exceptions that I don't actually think that your voting yes summary is true," Horowitz said.

"If your concern as a voter is, hey, I want to know if my legislator is talking to a lobbyist, this is doing nothing for you."

Who is arguing for it?

The argument for passing this law was authored by Diana DiZoglio on behalf of the Committee for Transparency and Democracy.

As state auditor, DiZoglio has been pushing for more transparency in government. In 2024, voters passed a law to allow DiZoglio's office the authority to audit the legislature, but it has run up against legal challenges.

Who is arguing against it?

No organized group filed a formal argument against this law with the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office. When this happens, the Secretary of the Commonwealth provides an argument. The focus was on "overly broad and poorly defined exemptions" and privacy concerns.

Jump to a ballot question: #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9

Mass. Ballot Question #2: Collective bargaining for public defenders

What would the law do?

If passed, this law would allow the Committee for Public Counsel Services employees - public defenders who provide legal counsel for defendants who can't afford paid representation - to form a union. This would allow them to collectively bargain with their employer.

Should Massachusetts public defenders have the right to form a union? That’s Question 2 on the 2026 ballot — here’s what a yes or no vote would mean.

It's worth noting that this only concerns the attorneys who are employed by the state, not the private sector attorneys who had a work stoppage over pay last year.

"Most people who work for the state of Massachusetts can form a union. It's only these odd pockets of workers who can't," Horowitz explained.

A vote yes would allow the workers to unionize. A vote no makes no changes.

Who is arguing for it?

The pro argument was penned by Tom McKeever for the Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights.

"This ballot question would allow CPCS employees to form a union if they so choose. It simply gives CPCS employees the right to make that choice for themselves," it reads.

Who is arguing against it?

No organized group filed a formal argument against this law with the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office. When this happens, the Secretary of the Commonwealth provides an argument. The focus of the argument is the "serious operational and fiscal risks for the judiciary."

Jump to a ballot question: #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9

Mass. Ballot Question #3: Replacing party primaries with an all-party primary

Question #3 looks at replacing the existing party primary system with one all-party primary. Voters could vote for any candidate in a primary and the top two candidates would compete in the general election. Voting yes approves the change, voting no would make no changes.

In Massachusetts primary elections, should the two most popular candidates overall progress to the general? That’s Question 3 on the 2026 ballot — here’s what a yes or no vote would mean.

Horowitz said this would make general elections more competitive than the current system, which sends one candidate from each party

"What (the current system) means in a state as blue as Massachusetts is that a lot of action is in the Democratic primary because Republican candidates just don't perform well on Election Day," Horowitz said. "So, if this ballot question passes what you could see, in lots of cases, is big open primary, and the top two people who moved from the primary to the general will both be Democrats."

Who is arguing for it?

The pro argument for this proposal was authored by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy. Allen argues this change would bring more transparency to elections and prevent "insiders" from blocking candidates at the convention level.

"All candidates appear on your primary ballot, and the top two advance to November where they need a majority of votes to win. Insiders have less control and we get fresh voices running for office."

Who is arguing against it?

The opposing argument was authored by Vanessa A. Snow of Voter Rights MA. Snow argues that this change would make it more difficult for third-party candidates to reach the general election.

"Third-party and independent candidates would be shut out of the general election, and working-class candidates would lose out on institutional support and access to party resources."

Jump to a ballot question: #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9

Mass. Ballot Question #4: Should voters be allowed to register on Election Day?

Question 4 concerns same-day voter registration. A vote yes would permit eligible citizens to register to vote or update their voter registration address at their polling place on Election Day. Voting no makes no changes to election laws.

It's worth noting that potential voters would have to provide proof of residency and if they cannot, they will only be able to cast a provisional ballot.

How late should you be able to register to vote in Massachusetts? How about on Election Day? That’s Question 4 on the 2026 ballot — here’s what a yes or no vote would mean.

This is a common option in other states, including New Hampshire.

"Twenty-three other states have done this and things work out OK in those other states," Horowitz said. But he also pointed out that Massachusetts already has automatic voter registration through the Registry of Motor Vehicles, Mass Health, or other interactions with state government.

"Most people who care about voting who are planning to vote are registered because we have this automatic voter registration system, so it's unlikely to have a big impact," Horowitz added.

Who is arguing for it?

The argument for this law was written by Norma B. Shulman on behalf of YES on Election Day Registration. They argue this will expand election access to more people while offering safeguards to ensure eligibility.

Who is arguing against it?

This law is opposed by Amy Carnevale on behalf of the Massachusetts Republican Party, which argues there is a risk of election security vulnerabilities and fraud.

Jump to a ballot question: #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9

Mass. Ballot Question #5: State revenue limit & tax rebate

This is a proposal to limit state revenue collections to a specific amount based on previous revenue plus average wage and salary growth.

A yes vote here changes the limit on state revenue collection and provides for a rebate of revenue exceeding that limit. A vote no makes no changes.

Voters are being asked to decide this year if Massachusetts taxpayers should get more of their money back if the state collects a surplus in tax revenue. That’s Question 5 on the 2026 ballot — here’s what a yes or no vote would mean.

This proposal could have significant financial impact on the state, including the ability to grow the "rainy day" fund.

Horowitz explains that there is already a law on the books that if the state collects an abundance of tax revenue, some of it should go back to taxpayers. But in 40 years, it's only happened twice. This proposal would change the formula.

"It would make refunds more frequent and larger. However, it breaks the connection between refund size and strong tax revenues...it has this bizarre feedback loop and the feedback loop means the state will end up sending back refunds when revenues are strong but also when they're not particularly strong," he said.

This would have long-term effects on the state budget, though Horowitz said it's not enough for "devastating" impact.

Who is arguing for it?

The argument for this law was provided by the Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, which says "A YES vote means you keep more of your hard-earned money, and makes Massachusetts a more affordable place to live, work, and raise a family."

Who is arguing against it?

Colette Berard, a history Teacher at Andover Public Schools writing on behalf of Protect Massachusetts' Future, argues that the limits on state revenues will impact everything from health care costs to school budgets and should be rejected.

Jump to a ballot question: #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9

Mass. Ballot Question #6: Earmarks for conservation and recreation

This is a proposal to create a "Nature for All Fund," money set aside for natural resource conservation, such as protecting drinking water and open spaces, and creating new public parks, trails, green spaces and recreation spaces. The money would come from state tax revenues from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses, bolstered by private donations.

A vote yes would create a fund that could be utilized for natural resource conservation, which would receive some state revenue. A vote no would be no change.

Should Massachusetts shift money around to create a new fund for natural resource conservation? That’s Question 6 on the 2026 ballot — here’s what a yes or no vote would mean.

Horowitz said the basis of the question seems to make sense - use money made from people enjoying the outdoors to protect the natural resources they enjoy outdoors. But there could be a problem.

"Ballot questions are not allowed to tell the legislature how to spend money. All they can do is say here's a pocket of money we hope you will spend on these things."

Horowitz said a Tufts analysis found this would amount to around $65 million. The state already spends about $400 million a year on conservation and recreation. There's no guarantee that the state would use the funds for any additional programming - in theory, legislatures could simply use the $65 million on existing expenses, and redirect the other money to other programming. It's an untested issue, Horowitz said.

"If you have an idea and you really like it and you have enough money to get signatures, you can get your idea on a ballot question," he said, saying whether or not a question will have real impact is not a factor for getting on the ballot.

Who is arguing for it?

Mass Audubon argued for creating the fund, saying it would help to protect clean water and nature without creating new taxes.

Who is arguing against it?

No organized group filed a formal argument against this law with the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office. When this happens, the Secretary of the Commonwealth provides an argument.

"The proposed law, as written, raises questions regarding fiscal impacts, programmatic displacement, and constraints on administrative flexibility," the argument reads.

Jump to a ballot question: #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9

Mass. Ballot Question #7: Local zoning and housing construction

This proposal would override local zoning regulations to increase housing production.

A vote yes would allow construction of single-family homes on lots of 5000-square feet or more in residential areas subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects of these homes. Boston is excluded from the proposal.

How small is too small to build a house in Massachusetts? This November, voters will decide whether to make it easier to build single-family homes on smaller lots -- That’s Question 7 on the 2026 ballot — here’s what a yes or no vote would mean.

Horowitz said the Tufts analysis found that this could result in around 750 new single-family homes being built a year.

"That's not transformative, that's not the end of our housing crisis, but it's meaningful, it's an increase of 15% in new single-family homes," he said.

Horowitz said he sees this as an extension of the fight that started with the MBTA Communities Law, which set off legal battles in some communities.

Who is arguing for it?

The argument for the law, penned by Wesley Lima of Legalize Starter Homes, focuses on making homeownership more affordable with the construction of smaller homes, ideal for first-time buyers or seniors looking to downsize.

"Requiring huge lot sizes to build a single-family home makes houses expensive, reduces construction of new single-family housing, and encourages developers to build giant McMansions to recoup land costs. Anyone who needs a low-cost, single-family suburban home is all but locked out of the market."

Who is arguing against it?

The opposing view, written by Adam Chapdelaine with the Massachusetts Municipal Association, argues that taking away local control would be the wrong approach to long-term housing solutions.

"Communities should continue expanding housing through local planning and collaboration—not through a statewide mandate that removes local decision-making."

Jump to a ballot question: #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9

Mass. Ballot Question #8: Rolling back marijuana legislation

This proposal aims to prohibit the sale of recreational marijuana in Massachusetts. That would include the legal sale, regulation, and taxation of cannabis and could change the penalties for possessing it. It does not impact medical marijuana regulations

A yes vote would roll back the initiative, originally passed by ballot question in 2016, that legalized the sale of recreational marijuana. A no vote would leave the existing laws and regulations as they stand.

Should Massachusetts repeal the sale of recreational marijuana? That’s Question 8 on the 2026 ballot — here’s what a yes or no vote would mean.

Horowitz said that he thinks it's a good idea to revisit law and consider whether they need updates or changes with new information. It's been 10 years since the original proposal passed. But he pointed out there are no other examples in the country of a state allowing recreational marijuana use, then pulling the rug out completely.

"No states have done this. There are no examples of a state saying 'let's legalize it, oh no we've gone too far, let's end this recreational marijuana industry,' and it really would decimate this industry that we have nurtured in the state if it passes," he said.

Who is arguing for this?

The argument for this proposal was written by Dr. Jeffrey Morgan, a retired oncologist and physician and retired instructor of medicine on behalf of the Coalition For a Healthy Massachusetts. He says there are significant societal costs to legalized marijuana, including health concerns, lost productivity and crime like DUIs.

Who is against it?

The opposing view, signed by Ryan Dominguez with the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, argues that repealing the law would kill the existing industry and bring back an unregulated black market.\

Businesses are advocating against Question 8, which, if passed, would overturn legalized cannabis for adult recreational use.

Jump to a ballot question: #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9

Mass. Ballot Question #9: The 2024 gun control law

Question 9 concerns gun control measures in Massachusetts. The "yes" and "no" votes on this are flipped from the other questions because this is a referendum on an existing law. A vote of yes would mean no changes to current law, which increased regulations on firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns, and assault-style weapons. Voting no would repeal the existing law, setting regulations back to what they were in 2023.

Two years ago, Massachusetts adopted some of the toughest gun laws in the country. But should they stay on the books? That’s Question 9 on the 2026 ballot — here’s what a yes or no vote would mean.

The law was originally passed in 2024 and immediately faced pushback.

"Whenever a law passes in Massachusetts, citizens can start collecting signatures to repeal the law and actually stop it from taking effect. That's what happened here," Horowitz said. Despite that, the governor ruled the issue an emergency and the law took effect.

Who is arguing for it?

Ned Notis-McConarty, writing for Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts, argues to keep the law in place keeps the state safer from gun violence.

"The law made vital updates, including banning ghost guns; outlawing devices that turn semi-automatic weapons into machine guns; expanding tools to help prevent firearm suicide and mass shootings; creating a firearms data dashboard to better understand gun trafficking; and more."

Who is arguing against it?

Toby Leary, writing on behalf of The Civil Rights Coalition, argues that the law as implemented was "bureaucratic overreach," spending tax money on confusing new regulations in a state that already had some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

"State agencies have struggled to explain the law, issuing dozens of clarifications for rules that treat harmless historical re-enactors and antique hobbyists like criminals."

You can read more about each question in the Information for Voters provided by the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Office.