How should you vote on each ballot question?

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Massachusetts voters will decide on a record-tying nine statewide ballot questions on Nov. 3, making it the busiest slate the state has seen in more than three decades. The Boston Globe is sharing its guide with The Light’s readers to help you navigate what could be thorny policy questions.

Here, find information about each of the questions, what supporters and opponents are saying, and what your vote could mean. For information on the donors behind the various proposals, check out the Globe database here.

Question 1: Expanding the state’s public records law

What’s the ballot question about?

This measure would expand the state’s public records law to include the governor’s office and the state Legislature. Both branches of government have claimed blanket exemptions from following the law, under which government records are presumed to be public unless they fall under a specifically stated exemption. In the case of the governor’s office, Maura Healey and her predecessors have cited a decades-old Supreme Judicial Court ruling in denying requests for records.

The ballot question includes a range of exemptions, including for public policy development and communications between constituents and their elected lawmakers.

State lawmakers have separately pushed legislation that amends state law in a more narrow way by carving out a specific set of documents and information that they would allow access to. It’s unclear how that legislation, which is still pending in closed-door negotiations, could impact the ballot question.

What would a YES vote do?

A “yes” vote would expand the state’s public records law to cover most records held by the state Legislature and governor’s office.

What would a NO vote do?

A “no” vote would not change the state’s public records law.

What do supporters say?

State Auditor Diana DiZoglio and other advocates have argued that Massachusetts is one of the least transparent states in the nation and expanding the public records law would promote open government. Governor Maura Healey has said she also supports expanding the law to cover both her office and the Legislature, with “appropriate exemptions.”

What do opponents say?

There is no formal opposition campaign to the ballot question, but Democrats who lead the state Legislature have said the measure does not provide enough protections for communications between elected officials and their constituents and could infringe on constitutionally protected separation of powers between two branches of government, given the secretary of state’s office enforces whether state agencies and other public entities are following the law.

— Chris Van Buskirk

Back to top ↑

Question 2: Collective bargaining for CPCS employees

What’s the ballot question about?

The question asks voters whether the state public defenders, and the hundreds of other employees who work at the Committee for Public Counsel Services, should be given the ability to form a union.

The proposed law would create a multi-step bargaining system, where these workers would be able to negotiate with the agency’s management and then seek the governor’s sign-off on the funding for whatever deal emerges. (The Legislature then would have to actually fund it.)

The question itself wouldn’t create a union, but it’d give employees the power to if they wanted.

What would a YES vote do?

A “yes” vote would give the employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the state’s public defenders organization, the ability to form a union.

What would a NO vote do?

A “no” vote would keep the current law as is.

What do supporters say?

Lawyer retention at CPCS has been low, even as it expands following the crisis last summer when many court-appointed private attorneys essentially walked off the job, leaving indigent defense in the Boston area largely to CPCS employees. Proponents hope collective bargaining could raise pay and improve work conditions, leading to greater stability and less turnover at an important agency. SEIU Local 888 and the National Association of Government Employees have funded the campaign pushing the ballot question.

What do opponents say?

There’s no organized group opposing the ballot question, but some observers say they worry about unforeseen and unintentional consequences to such a drastic change to labor relations, according to a legislative report. They worry that it could create confusion around chains of command and create operational inefficiencies.

— Sean Cotter

Back to top ↑

Question 3: State party primaries

What’s the ballot question about?

The ballot question would eliminate the state’s party primaries, a move that has sparked fierce pushback from the leaders of the state’s two political parties.

Instead of partisan primaries in state elections, the ballot question would instead establish a system in which all candidates would be listed on a single primary ballot, regardless of party. Voters could only vote for one candidate, and the top two candidates would advance to the general election in November.

Under the current state primary election rules, a candidate who is a member of a major party, such as the Democratic or Republican Party, must secure at least 15 percent of support at their party’s election-year nominating convention to be placed on the fall primary ballot. That current system would effectively no longer exist should this ballot question pass.

What would a YES vote do?

A “yes” vote would eliminate partisan primary state elections in Massachusetts and replace them with a top-two system.

What would a NO vote do?

A “no” vote would maintain the current partisan primary election process.

What do supporters say?

Supporters, including former gubernatorial candidate Danielle Allen and former governors Charlie Baker and Deval Patrick, have argued that the current process puts up barriers to some candidates. A top-two system would generate more competition, particularly in a state where incumbents in the Legislature and for other seats regularly run unopposed.

What do opponents say?

Opponents contend the top-two system benefits wealthy, self-funded candidates who can spend large sums on their campaigns for public office while blocking out third-party or independent candidates from being able to make it to the general election. They also argue the system would limit voter choice in November by allowing only two candidates to advance.

— Chris Van Buskirk

Back to top ↑

Question 4: Election Day registration

What’s the ballot question about?

Secretary of State William F. Galvin is spearheading a proposal that would allow residents to register to vote on Election Day. Currently, the deadline for someone to register or change their party affiliation is 10 days before an election.

Should voters approve the ballot measure, they would be able register to vote at their local polling place by showing “proof of residency” — such as photo ID, or a utility bill or bank statement that has their name and address — and signing an oath that they’re a U.S. citizen and at least 18 years old. The new law would take effect in January 2028, in time for the next presidential election. The ballot measure, however, would not allow people to change their party affiliation on Election Day.

What would a YES vote do?

A “yes” vote would allow eligible U.S. citizens to register at their polling place on Election Day.

What would a NO vote do?

A “no” vote would keep the current law as is.

What do supporters say?

The state’s current law creates what the ballot measure’s proponents say is an unnecessary barrier to voting. Election Day registration also isn’t novel: 19 states, plus Washington, D.C., allow for voter registration on Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Requiring people to also show proof of where they live — and to subject those who provide false information on the oath to potential felony penalties — creates what supporters say are “rigorous security safeguards” at the ballot box.

What do opponents say?

The head of the Massachusetts Republican Party said wiping out the 10-day window between allowing a resident to register and to vote robs elections officials of the time they need to check a potential voter’s identity, residence, and other information. Democratic leaders in the Legislature who have opposed the change in past years have also argued that residents already have many opportunities to engage in the democratic process without Election Day registration. Instituting the change, they’ve said, could also rob candidates, themselves included, of the chance of “wooing” all eligible voters during their campaigns.

— Matt Stout

Back to top ↑

Question 5: Tax cap law

What’s the ballot question about?

Remember those income-tax refunds you received in 2022 from the state? They would likely happen more frequently under Question 5, which would change the way the state’s annual tax revenue limit is calculated.

As is the case with current law, the ballot question would limit state revenue growth to a three year-average of salary and wage growth, ensuring the former doesn’t outpace the latter.

The big difference proposed in the ballot question hinges on how the state revenue part of that equation is calculated. It would change the lookback period for revenue growth to be the previous fiscal year, as opposed to the current system that’s tied to state tax revenue growth over time. One other change: The ballot question would also count revenue generated by the so-called millionaires tax, the 4 percent surtax subjected to annual income of roughly $1 million or more, toward the cap.

The end result: likely more refunds, though they probably won’t be as large as the $3 billion that went back to taxpayers in 2022. The proposed change would go into effect on July 1, 2027.

The current revenue cap has only been triggered twice since voters approved it in 1986, including that time four years ago due, in part, to the stock-market surge during the COVID-19 pandemic that drove state tax revenue up by about 20 percent in one year. An analysis performed by Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis estimates that refunds would be triggered as often as four times as frequently under the ballot question, and taxpayers would get up to $250 per year on average in refunds. The new system would also cost the state an average of more than $1 billion in foregone revenue each year, according to the center’s analysis.

What would a YES vote do?

A “yes” vote would change the limit on state revenue collection, tying it more specifically to prior year collections, plus average wage and salary growth.

What would a NO vote do?

A “no” vote would leave the current system in place.

What do supporters say?

Proponents, such as the Pioneer Institute and the Massachusetts High Technology Council, say the ballot question would improve the state’s competitiveness by creating guardrails on state tax growth and ensuring more money goes back to taxpayers.

What do opponents say?

Critics say the proposal would make it much harder for state lawmakers to craft their budgets, potentially lead to layoffs of public workers, and hamstring tax generation coming out of a recession. The Mass. Budget and Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank, argues that the language doesn’t account for a rise in gig workers, whose pay is not considered to be part of the wages-and-salaries category, and that it would limit the state’s ability to save more money in its so-called rainy day fund to help weather severe economic downturns.

— Jon Chesto

Back to top ↑

Question 6: Natural resource conservation

What’s the ballot question about?

A coalition of the state’s largest conservation and nature groups — including Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, and the Conservation Law Foundation — is leading a ballot question campaign to divert tax revenue on the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses into a fund dedicated to natural resource conservation.

The fund would be overseen by a 15-member board, but the state Legislature would ultimately need to appropriate the cash. Supporters have said the ballot question could generate up to $100 million for conservation efforts, while an independent analysis has projected it would be closer to $65 million.

The law would take effect July 1, 2027. State budget officials have said the question could have a significant impact on state and local finances by automatically diverting millions of dollars that currently help fund the state’s annual budget into a new conservation fund.

What would a YES vote do?

A “yes” vote would allow sales tax on certain outdoor activities and equipment to be diverted into a new fund for natural resource conservation.

What would a NO vote do?

A “no” vote would not change laws under how state taxes are used.

What do supporters say?

Supporters argue that money is necessary to protect the state’s natural areas and diverse wildlife. The ballot question would not specifically raise taxes or fees, and would create “strict oversight” for how the funds would be spent. Governor Maura Healey has endorsed the question, saying it’s a “winner” for the state and that clean air and water “aren’t luxury items for the elite.”

What do opponents say?

Though no formal opposition exists, some critics have warned that the proposed law takes control over a dedicated revenue stream away from the state lawmakers tasked with crafting the yearly budget. And even if approved, the funds may not be allocated at all to the “Nature for All Fund,” given the Legislature retains exclusive authority over appropriations decisions.

— Chris Van Buskirk

Back to top ↑

Question 7: Single-family zoning

What’s the ballot question about?

Too few Massachusetts residents are able to purchase a home these days, in part because there simply aren’t many new homes being built that are accessible to low- or middle-income families.

Many Massachusetts municipalities have stringent zoning rules that require homes to be built on relatively large chunks of land. In many cases, towns require lots to be at least one, two, or even three acres for a home to be built there. To cover the cost of building on such large lots, developers build bigger and more expensive homes, which are mostly purchased by well-off families.

So-called starter homes — the sort of modest homes that historically served as a family’s first foray into homeownership — have all but disappeared.

The idea behind the ballot question is that allowing single-family home construction on smaller lots will lead builders to start developing smaller, more modestly priced single-families accessible to a broader swath of the population.

What would a YES vote do?

A “yes” vote would allow single-family homes to be built on all residential lots of 5,000 square feet or larger without special approval from a local zoning board, so long as that lot has public sewer and water service and at least 50 feet of land bordering the street.

What would a NO vote do?

A “no” vote would maintain the current system, by which each individual municipality can determine the minimum size a piece of land in a given neighborhood or zoning district must be in order for a home to be built there.

What do supporters say?

Supporters argue that establishing a 5,000-square-foot statewide minimum lot size standard is a relatively benign way to get more homes built without fundamentally changing the character of neighborhoods. The new requirement would simply allow smaller homes in existing residential neighborhoods and open up more lots for development, potentially giving more families a path to homeownership and helping blunt the tide of so-called McMansions cropping up in well-to-do communities across the state.

What do opponents say?

The question’s most prominent opponent is the Massachusetts Municipal Association, the group representing the state’s 351 cities and towns. The MMA has argued that the ballot question would establish a precedent-setting policy that chips away at the rights of cities and towns to govern what is built within their borders and where. Local control of land-use, they say, is bedrock in Massachusetts. It has allowed many cities and towns to preserve their historic character over the decades, and decide where and how, if at all, they want to grow. Without such control, they say, development may run rampant.

— Andrew Brinker

Back to top ↑

Question 8: Cannabis repeal

What’s the ballot question about?

A decade ago, voters ushered in the era of legal recreational cannabis in Massachusetts, passing a ballot question that allowed anyone 21 and older in the state to walk into a retail store and pick up buds, pre-rolled joints, and edibles.

Question 8 asks voters if they want to change their minds.

If it passes, the measure would make Massachusetts the first state to dismantle its adult-use weed market, which has generated $2 billion in state and local taxes and more than $10 billion in gross sales, according to the Cannabis Control Commission. The ballot question comes amid a growing public health debate over the long-term effects of the drug.

The measure, if passed, would also tighten limits on possession, exacting a $100 fine from those found with between one and two ounces of marijuana (adults would be allowed to possess or gift one ounce or less). It would also repeal the law that protects home cultivation.

The ballot measure would not repeal the state’s medical marijuana program. If Question 8 passes, recreational dispensaries would be able to “apply on an expedited basis” to become medical dispensaries, according to a summary of the ballot measure. The Cannabis Control Commission, meanwhile, would pivot to overseeing only medical marijuana operations.

What would a YES vote do?

A “yes” vote would end recreational cannabis sales in Massachusetts, impose stricter possession limits, and roll back home cultivation protections starting Jan. 1, 2028.

What would a NO vote do?

A “no” vote would keep the laws as they are now, allowing recreational marijuana businesses to continue operating.

What do supporters say?

The group backing the ballot question, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, argues that the public health risks of widespread access to recreational marijuana outweigh the benefits. They have pointed to people driving under the influence of cannabis and the risk of kids and pets accidentally ingesting marijuana. They have also raised concerns about the potential for psychiatric consequences of cannabis use, like psychosis and schizophrenia, “particularly in young adults,” according to their submission to the state’s voter guide. Virginia-based Sam Action Inc., which is affiliated with Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a prominent anti-weed group, has bankrolled the Massachusetts campaign.

What do opponents say?

Opponents, including industry leaders, say that rolling back the adult-use weed market in the state would have far-reaching consequences, both economically and for public health. They say it would threaten the jobs of thousands of people who work in the Massachusetts cannabis industry, sacrifice hundreds of millions in annual state tax revenue, and drive consumers back to the illicit market — without the safety protocols that are in place for regulated recreational dispensaries.

— Dana Gerber

Back to top ↑

Question 9: Firearms regulation

What’s the ballot question about?

Second Amendment activists have placed a referendum on this year’s ballot to repeal aspects of the state’s strict gun control laws that lawmakers passed two years ago.

The repeal effort takes aim at a law Governor Maura Healey signed in 2024 that gun rights groups argue stretches beyond reasonable firearms regulations and steps on constitutional protections. Democrats who crafted the statute have hailed it as a measure that would save lives.

The battle over the law has since pitted a group of sportsmen clubs, gun shop owners, and Second Amendment activists against violence prevention groups.

The 2024 law is wide-ranging. It regulates so-called ghost guns, or untraceable weapons often made from 3-D printed parts; expands the state’s red flag law to also allow school administrators and licensed health care providers to ask a court to temporarily remove weapons from someone deemed a threat to themselves or others; and puts in place new training and licensing mandates. The law also banned guns from polling places and barred people from carrying firearms inside government buildings.

What would a YES vote do?

A “yes” vote would uphold the law.

What would a NO vote do?

A “no” vote would repeal the law.

What do supporters say?

Supporters of the 2024 law have said it made “vital updates” to firearms regulation in Massachusetts, including banning ghost guns and devices that convert semi-automatic weapons into automatic guns. Gun control advocates argue that because of this and other laws, Massachusetts has one of the lowest firearm death rates in the country and some of the strictest laws in the country.

What do opponents say?

Opponents of the 2024 law have argued it is an overreach of government powers and places unfair burdens on law-abiding gun owners. They say it also forces local police departments to enforce a “confusing patchwork of vague rules,” and that the red flag mandates “turn law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight.”

— Chris Van Buskirk

Back to top ↑