Massachusetts voters will be tasked with deciding the outcome of a whopping nine ballot questions on Tuesday, the most since 1994.
Questions range from whether the state should outlaw the sale of recreational marijuana, move away from single-party primaries for state elections, and make changes that would trigger more frequent tax refunds for residents.
Here’s a look at the nine questions that will appear on the state ballot:
Question 1:
A ‘yes’ vote on the first question would make most records held by the state Legislature and Office of the Governor subject to the state’s public records law.
The state Legislature and governor’s office are currently exempt from public records law, meaning officials there don’t have to provide documents requested by journalists and private citizens who file public records requests.
By comparison, state agencies, as well as city and town governments in Massachusetts are required to honor public records requests under state law.
Should the ballot question pass, most records held by the state Legislature and governor’s office would become public, but there would still be exemptions.
Documents related to the development of public policy and communications between legislators and their constituents would largely be exempt, particularly if a constituent is seeking information on how to obtain public benefits and services.
The Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis said exemptions would continue to apply should the question pass “because constitutional and other legal protections would likely take precedence over public records rules.”
It also noted the Legislature could override the ballot results by passing a proposed bill that would open up the governor’s office to public records requests, but adopt a narrower approach for the Legislature than sought by Question 1.
The question comes as the majority of voters approve of Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s prolonged effort to audit the state Legislature.
Question 2:
A ‘yes’ vote on the second question would allow public defenders — or attorneys appointed by the court to represent defendants facing criminal charges who can’t afford legal representation — to form a union.
The union would have the power to collectively bargain for better pay and working conditions. Today, public defender salaries are determined by the state Legislature and their working conditions are controlled by supervisors.
The Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis said the state employs several hundred public defenders in an agency called the Committee for Public Counsel Services. Most other state workers are allowed to unionize, but the CPCS is barred from doing so.
“At the same time, having to bargain with the CPCS union could complicate the state’s ability to flexibly serve low-income clients and potentially increase reliance on private-sector public defenders,” the Tufts cSPA wrote in its analysis.
Question 3:
A ‘yes’ vote would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections, and replace Democratic and Republican primaries with a single, all-party primary where the top two candidates would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.
The question, which conservative critics have said would effectively neutralize the Republican Party’s chances of having candidates elected to top statewide offices like governor in blue Massachusetts, has also drawn criticism from liberal pols.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley and other progressive politicians have argued that moving to all-party primaries would make it harder for grassroots candidates to compete against well-funded interests.
Boston already has an all-party primary system for local elections. Democrats hold the mayor’s office and all 13 seats on the Boston City Council.
But political observers have speculated some of the Democratic opposition to Question 3 is driven by the desire to protect incumbency.
“In a state as blue as Massachusetts, the top two finishers in the all-party primary could often be Democrats — and the general election would thus feature two candidates from the same political party,” the Tufts cSPA wrote in its analysis.
Supporters point to the potential for more competitive elections and higher voter participation.
If passed, the change would begin applying to state races in 2028. It would not impact presidential or municipal elections.
Question 4:
A ‘yes’ vote on the fourth question would allow same-day voter registration on Election Day.
Residents would be allowed to register to vote on Election Day by going to the polling place in the precinct where they live during voting hours and presenting proof of residency and signing a written oath.
Accepted proof of residency would include a valid photo identification such as a drivers’ license, or mail to their current address, such as a utility bill, bank statement, or lease agreement.
Nearly half of U.S. states allow same-day registration, but Massachusetts law requires registration at least 10 days in advance of an election.
Tufts cSPA notes that the question seeks to make registration easier, but adds that it may not be that impactful, given that residents are automatically registered to vote in Massachusetts when they get a drivers’ license through the RMV or interact with other state agencies.
Question 5:
A ‘yes’ vote on the fifth question would more often trigger refunds from a little-known state law, Chapter 62F, that was designed to put money back into the pockets of residents when the state collects surplus revenue in a given year.
While the refunds are required under the terms of Chapter 62F, they have only been triggered twice since it was introduced in a 1986 ballot question. The most recent refunds were issued back in the fall of 2022.
“Question 5 would rewrite the rules for 62F, linking refunds more strictly to annual revenue growth,” the Tufts cSPA wrote. “This approach would make refunds more frequent but also more haphazard, sending checks to taxpayers when tax receipts are strong but also sometimes when they’re not.”
The cSPA estimates taxpayers would receive roughly $200 to $250 per year, when accounting for refund and non-refund years, and likened the change to be tantamount to cutting the state income tax by about 0.15% to 0.2%.
The proposed change in law would include surplus revenue collected from the so-called millionaire’s tax.
Opponents argue that the tax rebates could lead to more state budget cuts and reduce flexibility surplus revenue creates for the state’s rainy day fund.
The change, if passed, would be effective as of July 1, 2027.
Question 6:
A ‘yes’ vote would direct a portion of state tax revenue collected from the sale of sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses to a “Nature for All Fund” that would be established under the sixth question.
While the new fund would be intended to support conservation and recreation initiatives in the state, such as playground equipment and park improvements, approval of the question does not require the Legislature to use the funneled funds in those ways, or increase spending for those initiatives, the Tufts cSPA found.
The change would take effect on July 1, 2027.
Question 7:
A ‘yes’ vote on the seventh question 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 it faces, and has access to public sewer and water services.
While the question is boosted by supporters who say it will make it easier to build starter homes that are more affordable to residents priced out of the housing market, its approval would not require the new homes to be starter-sized.
The Tufts cSPA estimates passage of the question would result in anywhere from 350 to 1,200 new homes being built a year, though it cautions that the loosened zoning restrictions do not guarantee additional housing production.
Opponents have expressed a desire to maintain local control over zoning, while supporters say the change is needed to tackle the housing affordability crunch.
Question 8:
A ‘yes’ vote on the eighth question would effectively repeal a 2016 ballot question that legalized the sale and use of recreational marijuana in the state.
If passed, the sale of recreational marijuana would become illegal, many retail stores that primarily sell recreational pot would shut down, and state and municipal governments would no longer collect tax revenue from the weed industry.
People aged 21 and older would be hit with $100 fines should they be found to be in possession of more than an ounce of marijuana.
The question does not seek to outlaw medical marijuana sales.
Tufts researchers speculate that banning recreational marijuana sales in Massachusetts would likely reduce overall use of the drug, “but it would also increase black market activity, and the policing necessary to curb it.”
Question 9:
A ‘yes’ vote on the ninth question would maintain the stricter gun control rules that took effect in 2024 as part of a gun safety law, while a ‘no’ vote would undo them by repealing that legislation.
The 2024 law increased the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns and assault-style weapons.
“If the 2024 law is repealed, Massachusetts would still have its former rules — already considered among the strictest in the country,” Tufts cSPA wrote. “The state would still require gun licenses and safety training, track firearm sales, and allow family-initiated red flag petitions, among other protections.”
Comments