Nine questions hit the ballot this fall

By Francisco Omar Fernandez Rodriguez Associate Editor There are nine questions on the ballot in Massachusetts this year. This ties the record for the most ballot questions in one election, which also occurred in 1972, 1976, and 1994. Question One asks whether the Massachusetts Public Records Law should be extended to most of the records of the Legislature and the Office of the Governor. The Public Records Law already covers other government entities, including municipal offices, public school districts, and state agencies. Various groups, including the press, rely on the law to get access to public records. However, the Massachusetts state government is known for not being very transparent. The Society of Professional Journalists named Massachusetts the recipient of their “annual dishonor” Black Hole Award this year. It recognizes government entities that have a lack of transparency. Massachusetts is the only state that exempts the state legislature, the state judiciary, and the governor’s office from public records laws, and it is one of eight that exempt the legislature, according to Ballotpedia. Even if this law passes there would still be exemptions, such as policy developments and constituent communications. In favor of Question One is auditor Diana DiZoglio and the group Act on Mass. In the voter guide, DiZoglio states everyone has a right to see what the government is doing with taxpayer money, especially at Beacon Hill. There is no official opposition group. The voter guide’s opposition statement, from the Secretary of the Commonwealth as per law, is that the proposed law is overly broad and doesn’t exempt constituent communications enough. A Yes vote would be for making most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. A No vote would be for making no change to the current law. Question Two asks whether workers with the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) are able to collectively bargain. CPCS is the state agency that offers legal representation to criminal defendants who cannot afford a lawyer. Right now, they cannot form a union or otherwise collectively bargain. If this question passes, CPCS would have to request funding to support it. The fiscal impact is considered difficult to project, according to the official voter guide. In favor of Question Two is the “Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights,” and the argument in the voter guide was authored by Tom McKeever. They said this question would give the right to unionize to CPCS employees, but it would still be up to them to decide. There is no official opposition group. The voter guide’s opposition statement, made by the Secretary of the Commonwealth as per law, is that allowing CPCS employees to collective bargain creates financial and operational risks to the judiciary. A Yes vote would be for allowing CPCS employees to form a union to collectively bargain. A No vote would be for making no change to the law regarding labor relations for CPCS employees. Sophomore English major Desire Fausta said it’s strange for these lawyers to not have this workers’ right. “I feel like they should be able to [unionize],” Fausta said. Question Three asks to remove political party primaries altogether and establish an all-party primary system instead. Massachusetts has political primaries that separate Democrats and Republicans. Voters request the ballot for one party. If Question Three passes, that is replaced by a different system. Every voter sees every candidate on the ballot. The top two candidates advance to the general election. Alaska, California and Washington are the only states that hold all-candidate primaries. The latter two use top-two candidates systems, while Alaska uses a top-four system. In favor of Question Three is the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, and the argument on the voter guide was authored by Danielle Allen. They stated this will bring more competition to Massachusetts elections, and with it more accountability. They stated two-thirds of the legislature are running unopposed this season, and that takes away accountability. The opposition argument in the voter guide was authored by Vanessa A. Snow of Voter Rights MA, a coalition of various organizations against an “All-Party” ballot. Their official argument stated that in California and Washington, these systems ended up favoring wealthy candidates and sidelined historically underrepresented groups. They also argue that limiting the general election in November to only two candidates actually reduces competition. A Yes vote would be for eliminating political party primaries and establishing an all-party primary system in its place. A No vote would be for making no change to the laws governing primary elections. Question Four asks whether citizens should be able to register to vote or update their voter registration on Election Day. For the Fall 2026 election season, citizens must make sure they are eligible to vote by Oct. 24. The deadline is always the tenth day before the election, unless this question passes. If so, elections after Jan. 1, 2028 would allow registration on Election Day. To do so, one would show up at the polls with proof of residence, fill out an application, swear an oath, and vote. If someone shows up without the documentation, they can vote provisionally, and the vote would only count if they return with the documentation. In favor of Question Four is Norma B. Shulman of the group YES on Election Day Registration. Their argument in the voter guide is this is something the rest of New England already does, and it enhances election security. In opposition to Question Four is Amy Carnevale of the Massachusetts Republican Party. Their argument in the voter guide is that without the advance period between the registration date and Election Day, errors and mistakes are more likely to go unnoticed. A Yes vote would be for allowing eligible citizens to register to vote or update their address on Election Day. A No vote would be for making no change to the laws regarding voter registration. Senior English major Dylan Sibley said it makes sense for people to be able to register to vote on Election Day because a lot of people forget until it’s too late to register. “As long as you have ID and you’re a citizen, I think you should be able to register on the spot,” Sibley said. Question Five asks whether the state revenue collection law should be altered so that the state’s tax cap would be based on the prior year’s revenue collection, adjusted for growth in wages and salaries. Also, surtax revenue from high income earners would be included in the allowable tax haul. This money is often referred to as the Millionaires’ Tax. Essentially, it asks to change the formula the state uses to determine if a refund to residents is in order, and include the money from the Millionaires’ Tax in that. Right now, the tax cap gets raised each year based on the growth of wages and salaries. It is compounding, while Question Five changes it to the actual collections of the prior year. The money from the Millionaires’ Tax isn’t part of this right now, but it would be included as part of the changes Question Five makes. The statement of fiscal consequences on the official voter guide stated that this would make less money available for the state budget and reduce the amount available for the “rainy day” fund. In favor of Question Five is the group Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts. Their argument is that this will ensure more refunds and that it won’t cut state spending for public services. On their website, they state that Massachusetts taxpayers would have received refunds 24 times in the last 40 years if this model was already in play, instead of only two times. In opposition to Question Five is Colette Berard of Protect Massachusetts’ Future. Their argument is that this would cause budget cuts to education, healthcare, affordable housing, and public safety. They state that “millionaires would get frequent tax rebates, while the rest of us pay the price.” Framingham State University is one of the state universities that receives money from the Millionaires’ Tax. A Yes vote would be for changing the limit on state revenue collection, as well as what is included in it. A No vote would be for making no change to the laws regarding state revenue collection. Question Six asks to create a Nature For All Fund that would use 50% - and after July 1, 2028, all - of sales tax from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and the use of golf courses, for natural resource conservation. It does not create a new tax to pay, but rather uses money from existing sales taxes. It would also create a 15-member Nature For All board that would decide how the money is used. The board would be made up of five state officials and 10 members of the public appointed by the Governor. The official voter guide stated this proposed law would have a significant impact on budgets. While a full analysis isn’t possible yet, it’s expected to “divert tens of millions of dollars of tax receipts currently supporting the state operating budget to the new fund.” In favor of Question 6 is the group Mass Audubon, a nature conservation organization. Their argument is that the proposed law would dedicate up to $100 million a year to protecting clean water, reducing pollution, and conservation of wildlife and farms, without raising taxes. There is no official opposition group. The voter guide’s opposition statement, made by the Secretary of the Commonwealth as per law, is that this would require reallocation or reduction of funds currently meant for other initiatives. Also, there is no guarantee the Legislature would allocate funds to Nature For All, even if it is approved by voters, according to the opposition statement. A Yes vote would be for creating a Nature For All fund. A No vote would be for making no change. Sophomore psychology major Logan Cantin said he supports this, but wants to know what areas would lose money from this. He said he’s afraid that it “would take away from other things, because I don’t want other things to be defunded because of this.” Question Seven asks whether the lot requirements for single-family homes should be set to 5,000 square feet across the state, except for Boston, which does not fall under Chapter 40A. Regulations such as height, parking, whether it can be rented out, and more would still fall under local authority. Throughout most of the state, single family home requirements, decided by local governments, are at 40,000 square feet, or an acre. In favor of Question Seven is the group Legalize Starter Homes. Their official argument is that Massachusetts is the hardest state for young people to buy a home, and that they’re leaving the state to find places they can afford. Their website states that they were endorsed by the New York Times Editorial Board. In opposition of Question Seven is the Massachusetts Municipal Association. Their official argument is that local officials understand their communities best and this law overrides their decisions. They state communities should expand housing through local measures, instead of a blanket solution such as this law. A Yes vote would be for allowing single-family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet. A No vote would make no change. Question Eight asks whether to prohibit recreational marijuana sales and change the penalties for it. The official summary, written by the State Attorney General, is that the proposed law would still allow people 21 and older to possess one ounce or less and to transfer to another person 21 or older one ounce or less. Anyone under 21 with two ounces or less would be “subject to a $100 fine, forfeiture of the marijuana, completion of a drug awareness program and community service, and notification to their parents or legal guardians of the offense and the penalties,” according to the summary. The Cannabis Control Commission would stay but its authority would shift to only medical marijuana. In favor of Question Eight is the Coalition For a Healthy Massachusetts. Their argument is that there has been a rise in driving while high since commercial legalization. It also states that for every dollar that is gained in tax revenue from marijuana, “taxpayers spend $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization from societal expenses, including increased healthcare, lost productivity, and crime (like DUI’s).” In opposition to Question Eight is the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition. Their argument is that the proposed law would shut down hundreds of small businesses and end billions of dollars in tax revenue. They also argue that arrests related to marijuana have historically “disproportionally impacted communities of color.” A Yes vote would be for prohibiting the legalization, regulation, and taxation of recreational marijuana sales and changing the penalties. A No vote would make no change. Question Nine is a referendum on an existing law. This means that a Yes vote would keep the law in place and a No vote would remove it. This is different from how the other questions are formatted. It asks voters if they approve of a 2024 law regarding firearm regulations. The law, “An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws,” is what makes Massachusetts one of the states with the strictest gun laws in the country. It changed definitions of various firearm terminology, imposed penalties for creating, possessing, and transferring untraceable firearms known as “ghost guns,” and otherwise updated firearm laws in the state. In favor of Question Nine is the group Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts. Their argument is that the 2024 law has saved lives and that the state has a gun death rate 70% below the national average. In opposition to Question Nine is the Civil Rights Coalition. Their argument is that Massachusetts already had very strict firearm laws before the 2024 law. They also stated that the 2024 law limits citizens’ rights. A Yes vote would be for keeping the 2024 law in place, and thus make no change. A No vote would be for repealing the 2024 law. Sophomore pre-engineering major Aesyn Lane said people do need the right to own guns at home, but if they take them to other places, they need to be checked on to see if they can be trusted with one.