As Massachusetts voters await nine ballot questions in November’s general election, and after three ballot initiatives were struck down by the Supreme Judicial Court, a new study is calling for a revamp to the state’s ballot initiative process.
The Pioneer Institute of Public Policy Research released a new study following an highly active ballot cycle, during which 47 initiatives were filed. Three of those were struck down by the SJC following mistakes by Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office and after their respective campaigns had already spent substantial money and time.
“Massachusetts is reviewing ballot questions in the wrong order. If a proposal is unconstitutional, campaigns should know before they spend months and millions of dollars collecting signatures,” said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. “If the problem is the government’s summary, voters shouldn’t lose their chance to decide the question because that mistake was discovered too late.”
The study, “Reforming Massachusetts’ Ballot Initiative Process: Preserving Direct Democracy While Improving Judicial Review, Transparency, and the Signature-Gathering, Process,” calls for constitutional and judicial review of initiatives to occur earlier in the process. It recommends that the state give citizens more time to gather signatures rather than erecting new barriers to ballot access.
Specifically, the Pioneer Institute is recommending two principal reforms: Resolving constitutional questions and legal challenges to ballot initiatives before signature gathering begins, whenever possible, and lengthening the current 64-day signature gathering period.
The Institute says this will give proponents of initiatives enough time to correct defective language and summaries before presenting them to voters while also reducing the pressure to rely on professional signature gathering firms to meet collection deadlines.
“Massachusetts and Ohio are the only states where an initiative can face multiple rounds of signature gathering. The Commonwealth’s first signature-gathering period lasts just 64 days, while 10 states give campaigns a year or longer. Of the 44 Massachusetts petitions that initially advanced in the 2026 cycle, only 11 survived the initial signature-gathering stage,” the study says.
It found that Massachusetts is already one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to its ballot initiative systems. Proposed measures face constitutional and legislative review, subject-matter restrictions, and multiple rounds of signature gathering before reaching voters.
“That pattern also carries a cost to public trust. Allowing initiatives to advance through the full signature gathering process — requiring significant investments of time, money, and volunteer effort — only to be removed afterward can breed public cynicism. At worst, it fuels suspicion that the process is being manipulated; at best, it deepens distrust of public officials and of the integrity of the initiative process itself,” it says.
This report comes as state lawmakers consider additional restrictions on ballot campaigns, including increasing campaign finance disclosures, prohibiting paid signature gatherers, expanding geographic signature requirements, raising voting thresholds, and broadening legislative authority over voter-approved measures.
Campaigns for rent control, legislative stipend reform, and an income tax cut — all raised more than $2.7 million and spent at least $1.6 million in 2025 alone, according to the study.
Campbell and her office faced public scrutiny after the SJC struck down the ballot initiative that would have gradually reduced the state income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, starting at 4.67% in 2027, then lowered to 4.33% in 2028, and then finally 4.00% in 2029.
The high court ruled in favor of eight Massachusetts voters who challenged Campbell’s summary of the Initiative Petition 25-18, “[An] Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to Reducing the State Personal Income Tax Rate from 5% to 4%.” They argued that her office did not provide a “fair, concise summary” of the proposal as required by state law. The court concluded that Campbell falsely stated in her summary that the proposed law would not lower the tax rate on long-term capital gains, when in fact, as written, it would lower it.
When pressed by the Herald on crucial mistakes by her office that led to the income tax initiative, as well as two others, being struck down by the SJC, Campbell defended her office and called it “a great record.”
“We have 47 (ballot initiatives) that we approved, we have 44 we certified. We had six challenges, and we got three wrong. I think that’s a great record,” Campbell said.
“That just tells me we have more to do to be better. Any institution, whether it’s media outlets or any industry, if they can get it 100% right every time…that doesn’t happen. We own these mistakes, I own these mistakes, and now we’ll move forward to improve our process to get it right the next time,” she said.
The three crucial errors by the AG’s Office has led some to speculate if other “mistakes” could be used as a vehicle for Beacon Hill leadership to kill proposals they find unfavorable.
“Ballot reform should protect voters from fraud and poorly drafted proposals without protecting government from voters,” added Stergios. “Earlier judicial review would catch genuine constitutional problems sooner and give courts time to fix defective summaries when appropriate. That strengthens oversight without making an already difficult process even harder for citizens to use.”
Original article
Comments