On Nov. 3, or prior to that for voters who take advantage of early voting between October 17-30, all voters will have the opportunity to vote on nine ballot questions that will become law if approved by the majority of voters.
To get on the ballot, the groups backing each ballot question were required to collect and submit at least 74,574 signatures last fall. The Legislature had until May 5, 2026 to act on the proposed law. The Legislature did not act on any of the proposals by the May 5 deadline. At which point supporters were required to collect another 12,429 signatures by July 1, in order to get their question on the ballot. All nine groups gathered sufficient signatures to get their question on the 2026 ballot.
Although neither the House nor Senate voted on any of the nine proposals, the Committee on Initiative Petitions did hold public hearings on the questions. The committee eventually issued a majority report recommending that the Legislature take no action on each proposal. The Legislature never acted on the reports which were simply “placed on file,” where they died.
Secretary of State Bill Galvin has issued an 88-page book via the U.S. mail and online with details about each question. If you would rather not read the entire 88-page book, Beacon Hill Roll Call continues its look at each ballot question over the next several weeks prior to the election. This week’s report includes Questions 7, 8 and 9.
BALLOT QUESTION 7
Question 7: This proposed law would allow single-family homes to be built in a residentially zoned area as long as the land on which it is to be constructed is at least 5,000 square feet and meets other conditions.
This question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would allow single-family homes to be built in a residentially zoned area as long as the land on which it is to be constructed is at least 5,000 square feet, has at least 50 feet of land bordering the street, road or public way that it faces and has access to public sewer and water services. It would also allow cities and towns to reasonably regulate certain aspects of those single-family homes, including their height, distance from neighboring buildings, open space, parking requirements and whether they can be rented out on a short-term basis.
WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY: “Massachusetts families need more homes, and a yes vote on Question 7 would provide more housing for young families looking for starter homes,” said Andrew Mikula, the chair of Legalize Starter Homes. “Young people often can’t find homes in Massachusetts to stay close to family or are living with their parents as adults. Building more starter homes has lowered costs in other parts of the country. A series of polls has shown strong support for Question 7, and our broad coalition reflects the fact that housing affordability is both an economic development priority and a social justice imperative. Every city and town will still have control over important regulations including the height of new homes, their distance from neighboring houses, parking, open space and short-term rentals. This is a win-win for working families, young people and seniors who want to find homes they can afford in their own communities.”
WHAT OPPONENTS SAY: “Question 7 is promoted as an effort to ‘legalize starter homes,’ but this misleading claim ignores the fact that starter homes are already legal, and Question 7 includes no mechanism to ensure affordability for first-time buyers,” said Adam Chapdelaine, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. “Instead of serving local communities and young families, this blanket mandate primarily serves the financial interests of developers — a motivation underscored by the substantial funding the campaign receives from real estate interests. Question 7 would bypass local public input, override municipal zoning authority and undermine thoughtful community planning, particularly in the area of local infrastructure. Cities and towns remain committed partners in addressing the state’s housing needs through far more effective, collaborative strategies, such as the 21st Century Road to Housing Act and Move-In MA. We believe voters are able to see through the clever marketing and are recognizing that Question 7 is not an effective solution.”
WHAT YOUR VOTE DOES: A “Yes” vote would allow single-family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet or more in residential areas, subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects of those homes.
A “No” vote would make no change to the current law on building single-family homes.
BALLOT QUESTION 8
Question 8: This proposed law would prohibit retail sale of recreational marijuana.
This question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would change the type and amount of marijuana that may be legally possessed in Massachusetts by repealing the current laws that legalize, regulate and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana.
The proposed law would also permit persons 21 years of age and older to possess one ounce or less of marijuana, including no more than five grams in the form of concentrate to give or transfer to another person 21 years of age and older one ounce or less of marijuana including no more than five grams in the form of concentrate. The proposed law would also impose a civil penalty of $100 and forfeiture of the marijuana for the possession of marijuana between the weight of one and two ounces.
For persons 21 years of age and younger, the proposed law would make the possession of two ounces or less of marijuana a civil infraction subject to a $100 fine, forfeiture of the marijuana, completion of a drug awareness program, community service and notification to their parents or legal guardian of the offense and penalties.
WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY: Dr. Jeffrey Morgan, a spokesperson for the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, responded to Secretary of State Bill Galvin for his 88-page election prep book.
“Question 8 would keep personal possession of marijuana legal, keep medical marijuana legal and stop commercial marijuana stores,” wrote Morgan. “Marijuana is now the most common drug found in fatal car accidents in Massachusetts and 85% of marijuana users admit to driving after and over 50% drive within an hour or less. Business owners have increased costs from higher rates of workplace injuries, increased healthcare costs and higher turnover. For every $1 gained in tax revenue, taxpayers spend $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization from societal expenses including increased healthcare, lost productivity and crime (like DUIs). Modern concentrates and edibles have been linked to mental health conditions like psychosis, severe anxiety and schizophrenia, particularly in young adults. As a result of commercial marijuana, ER visits in Massachusetts have drastically increased for teenagers with psychiatric conditions.”
WHAT OPPONENTS SAY: “Our campaign is working to protect the will of Massachusetts voters and keep recreational cannabis legal,” said Ryan Dominguez, chair of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition. “In 2016, voters made a clear choice to replace restrictive policies and a dangerous unregulated illicit market with a safe, regulated cannabis market. In the decade since, Massachusetts has built a highly regulated system that prioritizes public health, consumer safety, responsible regulation and equitable opportunities. Repealing recreational cannabis laws will not only take us backwards, it will negatively impact our communities that are already struggling with budget shortfalls. Since legalization, the cannabis industry has brought in close to $2 billion in state and local revenue. The revenue from the Marijuana Regulation Fund, the main fund that receives cannabis revenue, supports public health programs, investments in communities, law enforcement and public safety, as well as regulatory oversight.
“In addition to the public revenue impacts, it will negatively impact locally owned small businesses that have invested their life savings into building their legal businesses that create jobs and support local economies. Since the initiative passed in 2016, over 400 adult-use cannabis retail locations have opened across the state. These businesses, and the broader industry, support more than 27,000 jobs across Massachusetts. These retailers are an important part of the community. … It will also negatively impact the safety of our communities by pushing consumers back into unregulated markets and eliminating consumer protections. Since legalization, Massachusetts has implemented one of the nation’s most robust regulatory systems for cannabis sales, ensuring products are tested for safety, sold only to adults over the age of 21, and subject to strict oversight. Repeal would not make cannabis go away. It will make cannabis less regulated, less visible, and less accountable.”
WHAT YOUR VOTE DOES: A “Yes” vote would prohibit the legalization, regulation and taxation of the retail sale of recreational use marijuana and change the penalties for possession of marijuana.
A “No” vote would make no change to the current law relative to marijuana.
BALLOT QUESTION 9
Question 9: Do voters want to keep in place a current law that increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns and assault-style weapons?
This question asks voters if they want to keep in place the current law, approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Maura Healy in 2024, that added school administrators and licensed healthcare providers as parties permitted to ask a court to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order — requiring an individual to surrender or relinquish their firearm licenses, permits and firearms — if an individual is a present danger to himself, herself or others. The law also provides that, when issuing a Harassment Prevention Order, a court may also order the surrender of firearms licenses, permits and firearms.
The current law imposes penalties for possessing, creating and transferring untraceable “ghost gun” firearms and requires all firearms except antiques and relics, including unfinished frames and receivers that can be readily made into a finished product, to have serial numbers; changes firearms licensing requirements to allow local licensing authorities to request prior license and permit information from the state, as well as access petitions for involuntary mental health commitments denied by a court in addition to prior involuntary commitments, as a part of their review of applications for licenses to carry firearms, firearm ID cards and licenses to sell firearms; requires an individual to be 21 years of age to own semiautomatic rifles or shotguns; adds the possibility of incarceration of up to six months for a second offense of failing to report a firearm loss or theft; and enables 12- to 15-year-olds to apply for a self-defense spray permit with parental permission, and 15- to 18-year-olds to apply independently.
The law also changes the definition of “machine gun” to include bump stocks, trigger cranks, Glock switches and auto sears among the devices whose possession and use are subject to penalties; clarifies how to determine whether a firearm is an assault-style weapon and the circumstances under which a person may continue to possess assault-style weapons and large capacity feeding devices they already own; clarifies requirements relating to the carry and transport of firearms in motor vehicles and ATVs. It prohibits the carrying of firearms in government buildings, polling locations and schools, with certain exceptions; and criminalizes discharging a firearm and striking a building in use.
WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY: “A ‘Yes’ vote on Question 9 will protect Massachusetts’ lifesaving 2024-gun safety law and maintain critical safeguards that help keep our communities safe from gun violence,” said a spokesperson for “Yes” for a Safe Massachusetts. “The 2024 law established vital protections against untraceable ghost guns and dangerous conversion kits that turn semi-automatic weapons into machine guns. It expanded our Extreme Risk Protection Order laws to help prevent firearms suicides and mass shootings. It created a publicly available data dashboard that helps us better understand where guns come from and how they are used.
“Opponents of the 2024 law, backed by the gun lobby, are spreading fear and disinformation in an effort to roll back these lifesaving measures, falsely characterizing strong gun safety policies as an attack on constitutional rights. Let’s be clear: the 2024 law maintains a clear pathway for legal, law-abiding gun ownership in Massachusetts while establishing essential guardrails that address new technology and emerging threats facing individuals, families and communities.”
WHAT OPPONENTS SAY: “Does the state Legislature have the power to fundamentally change any of our constitutionally enumerated rights?” asked Toby Leary chair of the Civil Rights Coalition. “If the answer is ‘No,’ then you should vote ‘No’ on 9. This omnibus law (over 116 pages long) is only designed to regulate lawful people. It does not address the criminal element, and solely focuses on more delays, more cost and strict penalties for people not in compliance.
“Putting good people in jail for technical violations of Chapter 135 does not make us safer. Putting away violent criminals does, and that should be the focus of the Legislature. Polling suggests that 73% of likely voters in Massachusetts support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This comes down to a Constitutional question for a lot of voters. If the government can fundamentally change this right, do we really have rights? Or are there just privileges granted by state legislatures that can, at any time, alter and change how they are exercised? … When we are successful, Massachusetts will still have the strictest gun control laws in the nation. We will still have background checks, red flag laws, licenses, assault weapons ban, magazine capacity bans, government-mandated classes, and more.”
WHAT YOUR VOTE DOES: A “Yes” vote would keep in place the current law, which increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns and assault-style weapons.
A “No” vote would repeal this current law.
ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL
FIREFIGHTERS AND CANCER SCREENINGS (S 3284) – The Senate approved, on a voice vote without a roll call, a bill mandating free insurance coverage of cancer screenings for firefighters. The firefighters would not be subject to co-payment, deductible, coinsurance or any out-of-pocket expenses. The House approved a different version of the measure in July and the Senate version now goes to the House for consideration.
The screenings would cover colon cancer, lung cancer, bladder cancer, oral cancer, thyroid cancer, skin cancer, blood cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, testicular cancer and prostate cancer. The measure provides that the first screening would be conducted no later than three years after the firefighter starts the job, with subsequent screenings occurring every three years.
“Firefighters deal with it all — repeated exposure to smoke, fumes and toxic PFAS, ‘forever chemicals,’ in their turnout gear — so they can save lives and protect all of us Massachusetts residents,” said Senate Ways and Means chair Mike Rodrigues, D-Westport.
$2 MILLION FOR FARMS AND AGRICULTURAL BUSINESSES —The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) announced more than $2 million for the Climate Smart Agriculture Grant Program (CSAP) to help 68 Massachusetts farms and agricultural businesses buy new equipment, upgrade buildings and install clean energy systems that cut costs and boost productivity. The grants are designed to support 78 projects to improve food safety, reduce energy costs, protect natural resources and strengthen the long-term sustainability and resilience of Massachusetts agriculture.
“The CSAP grants are an investment in our farms’ future,” said Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rebecca Tepper. “With this support, farmers can buy better equipment, improve composting and adopt climate-smart practices – making Massachusetts agriculture more resilient and ready for future generations of growers.”
$142 MILLION FOR HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE — Massachusetts was awarded $142 million by the federal government to fund the state’s Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
“No family in Massachusetts should have to choose between heating their home and affording groceries or medicine,” said U.S. Rep. Lori Trahan. “With heating oil prices up nearly 75 percent from last year, that choice is becoming a reality for far too many households. Releasing these funds early will help families prepare for the winter ahead. But this year’s allocation falls short of last year’s at a time when the need is greater than ever. Congress must act to restore and strengthen this lifeline.”
Bay State residents can learn about the program and apply for it at https://tinyurl.com/mryut6cj.
$1.75 MILLION TO PROTECT STUDENTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA — The Healey Administration announced the awarding of $1.75 million in new funding to help Massachusetts schools protect students from the harmful impacts of social media and teach young people how to navigate the online world safely and responsibly. The grants are designed to support schools in educating students about online safety, cyberbullying, protecting their personal information, recognizing misinformation and making healthy choices about social media use.
“As a parent of two teenagers, I know how important it is to help young people navigate social media and all the pressures that come with it,” said Education Secretary Steve Zrike. “Our kids are growing up in a world that looks very different from the one we experienced, and schools and families need to work together to help students make healthy choices. These grants will give educators more tools to have those important conversations and help students develop the skills to stay safe online.”
Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at [email protected] Bob founded Beacon Hill Roll Call in 1975 and was inducted into the New England Newspaper and Press Association Hall of Fame in 2019.
Original article
Comments