Mass. just tackled 9 ballot questions. Here’s where each landed, and what comes next.

DEMOCRATS IN MASSACHUSETTS are cheering their party’s return to power, as a blue wave crashed around the country and claimed control of Congress. The state’s Democratic leadership swept back into office, with every major race called before midnight in Massachusetts.

The real question was how voters would handle a record-tying amount of direct democracy at the ballot box.

Facing nine ballot questions, Bay Staters rejected efforts to throw out existing cannabis and gun laws, and to change an obscure tax cap law. They gave the green light to legislative transparency and Election Day voter registration while waving away a quest to replace party primaries with nonpartisan ones. A new state agency will now be allowed to unionize, and there may be more money for conservation efforts in the next few years.

With all but one of the measures decided, all but two of their outcomes official, and a slew of new policies heading into effect in the next few years, eyes are now on Beacon Hill and how legislators choose to respond to the will of the voters.

Here’s how it all shook out:

QUESTION 1 — Public Records — YES

For the second cycle in a row, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio successfully pushed a ballot measure aimed at making the Legislature’s inner workings more accessible. Question 1, which the Associated Press called at about 11:40 p.m., makes the Legislature and the governor’s office subject to the public records law, with some exceptions to protect constituent privacy.

With just over 80 percent of votes counted, the measure was leading by a staggering margin, 86 percent to 14 percent.

The ballot measure was two things at once: a common enough “good government” reform where voters decided if their state lawmakers should follow the same laws as every city and town legislative body, and a follow-up to a ballot question voters overwhelmingly approved in 2024 to authorize the state auditor to probe the Legislature, which Beacon Hill leadership has forcefully opposed.

“It’s a very difficult sell to make to anybody that the Legislature and governor shouldn’t be subject to the public records law,” Jonathan Cohn, policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, said in late September. “Straightforward good government questions will always resonate with voters.”

Legislative leaders have said the measure raises serious separation of powers issues. In the coming weeks, they may surface legislation before January that could alter the newly passed public records law.

Read more on the results from CommonWealth Beacon reporter Chris Lisinski.

QUESTION 2 — CPCS Union — YES

There could soon be one more public sector union in town, after voters approved a ballot measure to allow employees at the Committee for Public Counsel Services to collectively bargain. The measure does not create a union automatically, but the employees are now empowered to form one and negotiate with the state over things like work conditions and hours.

The Associated Press projected Question 2 would pass at about 12:30 a.m. on Wednesday. The yes side held a strong lead, of about 65 percent to 35 percent, with about 80 percent of votes counted on Wednesday morning around 8 a.m.

Over 180 state agencies, including other employees in the court system, are allowed to collectively bargain. But CPCS employees like public defenders, secretaries, and social workers have long been left off the list. Beacon Hill leadership has shown little interest in legislation filed over several consecutive cycles that would have added CPCS to the list of public agencies whose staff is able to unionize and bargain.

A Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis review of the question, which faced no formal opposition, found it would likely lead to improved pay, more consistent employment terms, firmer job security, a clearer process to express employee grievances, and a more robust voice in agency decision-making. But it could also complicate their ability to flexibly serve low-income clients and will likely affect how much the state relies on private-sector public defenders known as bar advocates.

QUESTION 3 — All-party primaries — NO

A measure that would have overhauled the state’s primary system went down in defeat, with the Associated Press calling the race at 1:47 a.m. on Wednesday. Had it passed, the ballot question would replace the current primary rules, where parties each hold separate primaries to determine which Democrat and Republican advance to the general election. Instead, all candidates would all face off in a single primary from which the top two would have advanced to the general election regardless of affiliation.

The no side looked held 61 percent of the vote to the yes side’s 39 percent on Wednesday morning, around 8 a.m., with about 80 percent of all votes counted.

One of the fiercest fights of the ballot season, the all-party primary question pitted both major parties and legislative leadership, along with some progressive groups and unions, against the advocates who pitched the question and the private equity executives pouring money into the effort.

It’s a disappointing end for a well-funded operation helmed by Danielle Allen, a political scientist who ran for governor four years ago and touted the overhaul as a way to generate much-needed competitiveness.

“When you throw grit into the gears of a political machine, the machine fights back,” the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, which led the charge for the measure, wrote in an emailed statement. “The people who benefit most from the way things are fought hard for this result.”

Jordan Berg Powers, chair of the opposition campaign Voter Rights MA said the rejection was a sign of “grassroot power.”

“We did not have millions of dollars in private equity money,” Powers said in a statement at 11 p.m. Tuesday. “But what we had mattered: community activists, labor unions, grassroots organizations, and elected officials united in a broad ideological coalition to say ‘no’ to billionaires buying our democracy.”

Read more on the results from CommonWealth Beacon reporter Chris Lisinski.

QUESTION 4 — Election Day Registration — YES

This long-sought reform, allowing Bay Staters to register to vote on Election Day, was championed for almost a decade by Secretary of State William Galvin only to be met with shrugs on Beacon Hill. Galvin decided this cycle to pitch the idea directly to voters with a ballot question, circumventing the lack of movement in the Legislature.

And voters signed on for the change, with the Associated Press calling it for the yes side overnight. Yes votes were leading 57 percent to 43 percent by Wednesday morning.

Starting in 2028, Bay Staters will be able to register at their polling place on Election Day, then cast a ballot. For the next federal election — this time with the presidency on the line — it’s as simple as heading to a polling place, presenting proof of residency, and signing a written oath. But for next year’s municipal elections, the current deadlines will remain in place: Residents must register to vote or update their address at least 10 days in advance of the election.

The coalition behind the Election Day registration measure, which includes Common Cause Massachusetts, the state’s League of Women Voters chapter, and the ACLU of Massachusetts, called the policy a “tried-and-true reform” and said “voters resoundingly support expanding access to the polls for every eligible citizen.”

Read more on the results from CommonWealth Beacon reporter Chris Lisinski.

QUESTION 5 — Tax Cap Change — NO (but not yet called)

Proponents of Question 5, which would have led to more tax refunds under the existing law known as Chapter 62F, conceded defeat Wednesday morning. The race had not yet been called by the Associated Press as of midday, but the cadre of influential business groups said “voters have chosen to retain the existing law.”

“That decision deserves respect, even as important questions remain about the growth of state spending, the cost of living and doing business, and Massachusetts’ ability to retain residents, jobs, and investment,” Taxpayers for an Affordable MA, the group pushing the question, said in a statement.

Labor unions opposed the measure, arguing that forcing Beacon Hill to return money to taxpayers more frequently would eat away at the state’s ability to fund popular programs and services.

“The people of Massachusetts chose to protect critical state funding for healthcare, education, housing, and local aid; not slash state spending to pay for occasional tax rebates,” said Harris Gruman, executive director of the SEIU Massachusetts State Council and a leader of the opposition campaign. “Despite not running any advertising until the final week of the campaign, our grassroots campaign of working people defeated the corporate lobby at the ballot.”

As of 1:15 p.m. Wednesday, the measure was slightly but steadily trailing by about 52 percent to 48 percent. More than 93 percent of the votes had been tallied.

The proposed tax cap change was one of two business-backed ballot measures this cycle that had been aimed at putting a lid on taxes but criticized by progressives and lawmakers as benefiting wealthy residents while making it harder for the state to fund its many social supports. The other measure was jettisoned by the state’s high court for an erroneous summary by the attorney general’s office.

As Bay Staters struggle with high costs, Beacon Hill fretted that the tax cap change could pass, and lawmakers prepared legislation that could undercut it. Ultimately, it looks like they won’t need to pull that ripcord, but the proponents have signaled that they may be back at the ballot box soon enough.

Colin Reed, spokesperson for the Mass Opportunity Alliance, said the group was disappointed by the apparent outcome, which “does not resolve the underlying questions about the cost of living and doing business in Massachusetts, or the loss of residents and economic opportunity.”

Read more on the results from CommonWealth Beacon reporter Chris Lisinski.

QUESTION 6 — Conservation Funding — YES

Voters approved a measure that supporters say could steer $100 million annually from existing sporting goods sales tax revenues toward a new nature conservation fund.

“The results of Question 6 confirm what we already knew: that protecting the outdoors has broad appeal,” Mass Audubon President David O’Neill said in a statement. “This is an historic night for the nature of Massachusetts.”

By Wednesday morning, the yes side held a 61 percent to 39 percent lead, and the Associated Press had called the race.

The measure, which was backed by environmental groups and endorsed by Gov. Maura Healey, faced no formal opposition but prompted gentle skepticism from some. Attracting substantial financial support from a few wealthy individuals, the question means the fund will be established to support clean drinking water, create and improve local parks, and protect wildlife habitats without raising taxes or levying a new one.

Instead, future revenue from the sales tax already being collected from purchases of camping equipment, hunting and fishing gear, and golf clubs will boost the new fund. But it will happen only if lawmakers choose to allocate those funds, and some on Beacon Hill have warned about the ramifications of setting state spending decisions via ballot and taking money out of the General Fund during a time of fiscal constraints.

The MassGOP suggested a no vote, the Massachusetts Democratic party recommended a yes vote, and it was the only question where Progressive Massachusetts said people should “vote how you want.”

Supporters cheered the win on Tuesday night as an important signal that conservation efforts should not wait for an indifferent Legislature.

“Massachusetts has been at the forefront of land conservation for generations, but for years we’ve underfunded nature,” said Katie Theoharides, president of The Trustees.

Read more on the results from CommonWealth Beacon reporter Jordan Wolman.

QUESTION 7 — Starter Homes — TBD

By Wednesday afternoon, the lone ballot question whose outcome remained unclear was the one that involved the bête noire of the state’s affordability crisis: housing.

The measure, if passed, would force municipalities to allow homes on smaller lots, preventing local governments from requiring more than 5,000 square feet and 50 feet of frontage to build a single-family home on lots served by water and sewer. Proponents said the large lot sizes now required in many municipalities were stifling new construction that could be more affordable to more households.

This “Legalize Starter Homes” campaign sought to build on a recent trend of overriding local control on zoning rules, following on the heels of the MBTA Communities multifamily housing law and the statewide legalization of accessory dwelling units. Like those earlier laws, which Beacon Hill leaders and housing abundance groups say are essential to building the 222,000 units needed by 2035 to meet demand, opposition came from cities and towns that say they are best positioned to decide what housing fits their communities.

Well into Wednesday, Question 7 remained too close to call, with the yes and no votes just 1 percentage point apart.

QUESTION 8 — Recreational Marijuana Rollback — NO

Legal recreational cannabis is staying on the books, after voters rejected Question 8.

The measure, pushed by a group backed by the national anti-legalization organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), would have dismantled the state’s recreational cannabis industry and created new penalties for possessing a certain amount of marijuana. Proponents said tax revenue from recreational marijuana sales does not make up for what they consider the associated economic and societal costs of legalization.

The campaign was dogged early on by allegations with keep of fraudulent signature gathering, but the ballot law commission ruled against most of those claims, citing a lack of substantial evidence.

Some voters still had the episode on their minds as they hit the polls. Outside a Somerville polling place Tuesday night, voter Jack Branigan voiced his strong opposition to the question for just that reason, citing what he called “pretty shady” tactics by signature gatherers early in the repeal campaign.

“I signed a petition outside a supermarket, and the people who spoke to me just kind of gestured at some very vague, positive idea,” he recalled. “I signed it, not even thinking twice about it. More fool I — I later found out that was the group pushing to put the marijuana question back on the ballot.”

The Associated Press called the question just before midnight, and voters on Wednesday were opting, by a three to one margin, to keep in place the current system — itself the result of a ballot measure 10 years ago.

“Voters told an out-of-state effort that wanted to dismantle a decade of work and replace progress with restrictive policies, ‘No,’” said Stop the Repeal campaign chair Ryan Dominguez in a statement. “Massachusetts voters know that our safe, regulated cannabis market is working.”

The recreational cannabis industry argued the consequences for a repeal would be disastrous. The industry employs tens of thousands of people in the state, and state regulators say Massachusetts has pulled in about $2 billion in tax revenue since legalization.

QUESTION 9 — Gun Law Repeal — YES (keeps the law)

They may have some gripes with the Legislature, but Massachusetts voters were mostly happy with the firearm law it passed two years ago and turned aside an attempt by gun rights advocates to repeal it.

Supporters of keeping the law in place celebrated victory around 10:45 p.m., as Ruth Zakarin, chair of the Yes on 9 campaign, described the outcome as a way to “protect the strong foundation that we have already built with this legislation and with the legislation that came before it.” Zakarin noted that Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country, but she said “they’re not low enough.”

“Every shooting is a crisis and a call to action,” she said. “No family should be missing a family member at their dinner table, and no community should be left traumatized by gun violence.”

The sweeping legislation enhanced requirements on training, licensing, and data collection, and created regulations for ghost guns and 3-D printed guns. Second Amendment groups quickly moved to repeal the law, arguing the legislation was an unacceptable intrusion from liberal lawmakers and violated their constitutional rights.

The Associated Press called the question around 12:20 a.m. on Wednesday. As a repeal referendum, the yes and no votes were reversed. A yes vote meant keeping the law, and a no vote would toss it. Voters came down firmly on the yes side, with 67 percent in favor of keeping the law and 33 percent voting to repeal with about 82 percent of the votes tallied.

Voters may have another repeal effort to look forward to in the near future, as opponents of a recently signed late-term abortion law say they have gathered enough signatures to trigger a referendum in 2028.