MA - 9 Ballot Questions
- Aug 19
- 40 min read
There are a total of 9 ballot questions on the ballot this year.
You will be able to vote on these questions on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Early and mail-in voting will also be available — please check with your local election office for more information.
Section 1 is a general outline of the ballot questions with appropriate links. Each entry includes a "View More Details" link that will bring you to very comprehensive information on each of the questions in Section 2.
All of the selected information, below, is quoted from information within the hyperlinks included in Boston.com
SECTION 1:
GENERAL OUTLINE OF QUESTIONS.
Question 1: Expanding the Public Records Law
Under this ballot initiative, records kept by the governor’s office and the state legislature, which are currently excluded from the access requirements in Massachusetts law, would be classified as public records.
Question 2: Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees
This measure would allow public defenders and other employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services to unionize and participate in other collective bargaining practices.
Question 3: State Primary Elections
This proposed initiative would merge individual political party primaries into a single election. All candidates, regardless of political affiliation, would be listed on the ballot together, and the two candidates that receive the most votes would move forward to the general election.
Question 4: Election Day Registration
This question would allow Massachusetts residents to register and vote on the day of the election.
Question 5: State Revenue Limit & Rebate
If passed, officials will use a new method for determining the state tax revenue cap.
Currently, this cap is based on the previous year’s limit combined with the three-year average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts. If the question is passed, the limit would instead be calculated using the actual net state revenue from the preceding year along with the wage and salary growth.
Question 6: Natural Resource Conservation Fund
This measure proposes creating a “Nature for All Fund,” which would allocate state finances to fund nature conservative efforts.
Question 7: Single Family Homes
Under this initiative, municipalities would be permitted to allow for the construction of single-family residences on residentially zoned lots that meet specific minimum standards: at least 5,000 square feet of area, at least 50 feet of frontage along a public way or street, and connection to public sewer and water services.
Question 8: Prohibit Retail Sale of Adult Recreational Use Marijuana
This proposal seeks to overturn the 2016 ballot question that legalized the sale of recreational marijuana across Massachusetts.
If approved, this measure would repeal the current laws permitting the sale and home cultivation of recreational marijuana, as well as establish new possession limits and civil penalties for violations.
Question 9: Firearms Regulation
The final question proposes repealing the 2024 gun reform law, which changed the ban in state law from an assault weapon ban to an assault-style firearm ban.
SECTION 2 COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION ON EACH QUESTION
QUESTION 1
A "yes" vote supports making records held by the state legislature and the governor's office subject to the state's public records law, with the following exceptions:
|
A "no" vote opposes making records held by the state legislature and the governor's office subject to the state's public records law. |
How would Question 1 change the state's public records law?
See also: Text of measure
Question 1 would make records held by the state legislature and the governor's office public records.[1] As of 2026, books, papers, financial statements, and other documents held by government agencies are considered public records and are subject to the access requirements in Massachusetts law, but documents held by the state legislature and the governor's office are exempt from this requirement.[2]
Question 1 includes two exceptions for types of documents held by the state legislature and the governor's office that would not be subject to the public record law.[1] Those include:
documents related to the development of policy positions of legislators or the governor; and
communications between a legislator's office and their constituents concerning a constituent's access to government services.
-----
The Coalition for Healthy Democracy is leading the campaign in support of Question 1.[3]
Supporters
Officials
Governor Maura Healey (D)
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio (D)
Organizations
Act on Mass
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance
Progressive Massachusetts
Individuals
Danielle Allen (D) - Former Candidate for Governor
Arguments
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio: "The documents that I have requested for the audit are matters of public record in every other entity that actually follows the public records law. If [lawmakers] don’t want to give the documents to me, I’m just going to work to make sure that those documents are given to you all directly and will take out their bogus constitutional limitations."
Opponents
Officials
Senate President Karen Spilka (D)
Arguments
Senate President Karen Spilka (D): "It’s my understanding that the way this ballot initiative may be written is that confidential information about our constituents collected through our offices may not, in every circumstance, be able to be excluded. Now, I don’t think people want that to happen... So much of our work in each office, representatives and senators, deals with constituent services. People call up and talk about incredibly personal information, it could be immigration, it could be domestic abuse."
Public records laws in other states
Massachusetts is the only state where the state legislature, the state judiciary, and the governor's office are all exempt from the- state's public records law.[5][6]
QUESTION 2
A "yes" vote supports permitting employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to participate in collective bargaining practices, and requiring the CPCS to request funding from the governor for agreements within 30 days after entering into a collective bargaining contract. |
A "no" vote opposes permitting employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to participate in collective bargaining practices. |
What would Question 2 do?
See also: Text of measure
Question 2 would permit employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to participate in collective bargaining practices. It would also require CPCS to request funding from the governor for agreements within 30 days after entering into a collective bargaining contract.[1]
What is collective bargaining?
Collective bargaining is the process by which employees negotiate through unions or other chosen representatives with their employer.[2] The contracts decided through collective bargaining, called collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), set the contractual terms and conditions of their employment. Topics considered in such agreements can include hours, salary, benefits, leave policy, and other working conditions. Often, employees pay a fee to be represented and included in the CBA; this fee, called union dues, are what employees pay to be a member of the union.[3]
Supporters
Unions
National Association of Government Employees
SEIU Local 888
Organizations
Progressive Massachusetts
Arguments
SEIU Local 888 President Tom McKeever: "These folks are doing yeoman’s work, and they want to be able to have the same rights as every other state employee in the Commonwealth. One hundred and eighty other state agencies have the right to collectively bargain, and CPCS does not."
American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts: "CPCS is Massachusetts’ public defender agency. In 2015, SEIU 888 attempted to organize CPCS employees, but their petition was denied, citing an argument that these CPCS employees were not explicitly included in Massachusetts’ laws establishing collective bargaining rights. A YES vote would right this wrong by adding CPCS employees to the list of public employees with the right to collectively bargain under Massachusetts state law."
Opponents
Ballotpedia has not located a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure. You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Public sector collective bargaining in Massachusetts
In Massachusetts, state law allows collective bargaining for public employees.[5] There are two categories of public sector employees that are permitted to collectively bargain in Massachusetts, and each category has different policies regarding receiving funding from the government for their collective bargaining agreement.
Public sector collective bargaining restrictions in other states
A total of nine states have some form of restrictions on collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between an employer and a public sector labor union.[12] CBAs are contracts that determine employment terms and conditions. Two states, North Carolina and South Carolina, have banned collective bargaining agreements for all public sector employees.[13]
QUESTION 3
A "yes" vote supports creating a single primary election in which all candidates would be listed on the same ballot for state elections, regardless of their political affiliation, and the two candidates that receive the most votes would advance to the general election. |
A "no" vote opposes creating a single primary election in which all candidates would be listed on the same ballot, regardless of their political affiliation, thus maintaining separate political party primaries for state elections. |
How would Question 3 affect primary elections?
See also: Measure design
Question 3 would eliminate political party primaries for state elections. Instead, it would create a top-two primary system for offices filled at a state election.[1] In this primary system, all candidates would be listed on the same ballot, regardless of their party affiliation. All registered voters would participate in the same primary. The top two vote-getters would advance to the general election, regardless of their partisan affiliations.[2]
Question 3 would require candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor to register as candidates together before the primary election.[2] As of 2026, candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor run separately in their primary parties and are then combined onto a ticket for the general election.[3]
Question 3 would require primary ballots to include, next to the name of a candidate, the political party or political designation included in their nomination papers. At the request of both the candidate and the political party or political designation, the words "Endorsed by the political party or designation" would be added next to the candidate's name on the ballot.[2]
What political offices would be subject to a top-two primary?
|
|
How many states use a top-two primary system?
See also: Top-two primaries in the United States
As of September 2025, three states used a top-two primary for some elections. In 2004, Washington became the first state to adopt a top-two primary system for congressional and state-level elections after the passage of Washington Initiative 872. California adopted a top-two primary system in 2010 after the passage of California Proposition 14. In Nebraska, a top-two primary system is utilized for state legislative elections. Because Nebraska's state legislature is nonpartisan, partisan affiliation labels are not listed alongside the names of state legislative candidates.
Two additional states used a variation of top-two primaries for their elections. In 2020, Alaska voters approved Ballot Measure 2 establishing a top-four primary for state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections. For some statewide offices — including state senator and representative — Louisiana uses the majority-vote system. In this system, if a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast for an office, they win the election outright. If, however, no candidate reaches that threshold, a second round of voting is held between the top two vote-getters. Any registered voter can participate in both the first-round and second-round elections.[6][7]
-----
The Coalition for Healthy Democracy is leading the campaign in support of Question 3.[10] The campaign named the measure the All Party State Primaries initiative.
Supporters
Officials
U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D)
U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton (D)
State Auditor Diana DiZoglio (D)
Former Officials
Lt. Governor Kerry Healey
U.S. Rep. Joseph Kennedy III (D)
State Rep. Leonard Mirra (R)
State Rep. Mathew Muratore (R)
Gov. Deval Patrick (D)
Political Parties
Massachusetts Forward Party
Organizations
Election Reformers Network
NAACP New England Area Conference
Partners in Democracy
Veterans for All Voters
Individuals
Danielle Allen (D) - Former Candidate for Governor
Vivian Birchall (D) - Former Candidate, 14th Middlesex District
Steven Grossman (D) - Former Chair, MassDems
Jennifer Nassour (Nonpartisan) - Former Chair, MassGOP
Tanisha Sullivan (D) - Former Secretary of State Candidate
Arguments
U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-4): "I think American democracy is stronger when every election is competitive in November everywhere, and this does that."
Coalition for Healthy Democracy: "Right now, elected officials operate in a system that rewards partisan extremes rather than consensus-building leaders. Only a small, unrepresentative fraction of voters determine an election. Candidates aren't required to engage in broad, substantive debate before the general election. All-candidate primary elections will unlock the true potential of our political system. We already vote this way for mayoral elections in most Massachusetts cities. Every voter can participate in a meaningful way, with candidates competing for broad support, not just their party’s base. New candidate voices can actually be heard. Our elections would finally be more competitive, substantive and reflective of all of us."
Jesse Littlewood, campaign manager for Coalition for Healthy Democracy: "We’ve had great conversations across the state. The voters we’re speaking to who are enthusiastic about this want more competition in their elections, want elections where they can hold politicians accountable and want officials to represent all of their voters."
Former MassGOP Chair Jennifer Nassour: "At the end of the day, we don't want one party deciding where our tax dollars go, and we don't need a governor who's not going to inform us of the decisions that she's making. And unless we have competitive primaries and competitive elections, we're never going to change that."
Danielle Allen, convening chair of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy: "Unenrolled (or independent) voters, who make up 65 percent of the electorate in the state and lag in turnout in the primaries, are also sidelined in the most consequential stage of the election cycle. While it might seem simple to declare a party long enough to vote and then go back to being unenrolled, being forced to pick a party’s ballot — and subsequently being shut out of races that appear on the other party’s ballot — appears to be a disincentive to participation for unenrolled voters. Turnout rates are, indeed, lower for unenrolled voters in primary elections, and they are more likely to vote when they do not have to choose a partisan ballot. When voters are taken for granted, accountability slips and urgency disappears. When urgency disappears, problems linger. Housing remains unaffordable. Health care doesn’t meet needs. Costs keep rising. The result is a growing sense from the average person that their democracy isn’t working for them. So why care?"
Voter Rights MA is leading the campaign opposing Question 3.[11]
Opponents
Officials
U.S. Sen. Edward J. Markey (D)
Political Parties
Unions
1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East
32BJ SEIU
Local 509 SEIU
Massachusetts American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
SEIU Massachusetts State Council
Organizations
Act on Mass
Mass Alliance
Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts
Progressive Massachusetts
Individuals
Amy Carnevale - Chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party
Arguments
Chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party Amy Carnevale: "Our existing party primary system is crucial to ensure that voters have an option of choosing between two alternative political philosophies at the ballot box."
Lawsuit filed by Democratic State Committee members Martina Jackson and Ann Roosevelt: "By restricting general election ballots to only two candidates, the Petition dilutes the ‘diversity and competition in the marketplace of ideas’ in the phase of the electoral process in which policy choices are most seriously considered."
Voter Rights MA: "Look past the proponents’ slogans and Question 3 is a measure funded by a handful of very wealthy people, most of them from the private-equity world. We saw the effects of all party primaries in California this year: voters were pressured to abandon their candidate of choice in order to get behind the most well-funded candidates in order to not spoil the election for their party, with a billionaire almost buying his way into the general election. Billionaires are paying for this ballot question, which will make it easier for billionaires to buy our elections."
American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts: "In states with the 'top 2' or 'jungle primary' model, the results are clear: the candidates that make it to the final two are consistently the ones that are able to bankroll their campaigns. What proponents tout as increasing competition is nothing more than increasing the role of money in campaigns while weakening the impacts of grassroots campaigning."
.Primary elections in Massachusetts
See also: Primary elections in Massachusetts
In Massachusetts, primaries are semi-closed. This means that both voters who are affiliated with a political party and unaffiliated voters may vote in a party's primary. A previously affiliated voter must update their registration at least 10 days before a primary to vote in a different party's primary.[13] The winner of a primary election is the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes, even if the candidate does not receive an outright majority of votes cast.[14][15]
The table below lists Massachusetts offices for which parties must conduct primary elections to nominate their candidates.[15]
Elective offices for which parties must conduct primaries to nominate general election candidates | |
OFFICE | NUMBER OF SEATS |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
2 | |
9 | |
200 | |
Local offices | Varies by municipality |
Top-two primary
See also: Top-two primary
A top-two primary is a type of primary election where all candidates are listed on the same ballot. The top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their partisan affiliations. Consequently, it is possible for two candidates belonging to the same political party to win in a top-two primary and face off in the general election.[16][17]
Top-two primaries should not be confused with blanket primaries. In both types of primaries, all candidates are listed on the same ballot and voters choose one candidate per office regardless of party affiliation. However, in a blanket primary, the top vote-getter from each party advances to the general election. This ensures that candidates from the same party will not compete against each other in the general election.[18][19]
Top-two primaries in the United States
As of September 2025, three states used a top-two primary for some elections:
California adopted a top-two primary system in 2010 after the passage of California Proposition 14.
In Nebraska, a top-two primary system is utilized for state legislative elections. Because Nebraska's state legislature is nonpartisan, partisan affiliation labels are not listed alongside the names of state legislative candidates.
In 2004, Washington became the first state to adopt a top-two primary system for congressional and state-level elections after the passage of Washington Initiative 872.
Two additional states used some variation of top-two primaries for their elections:
In 2020, Alaska voters approved Alaska Ballot Measure 2 establishing a top-four primary, which is a variation of the top-two primary, for state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections. The initiative also established ranked-choice voting for general elections for the aforementioned offices and the presidency.
In Louisiana, rules to participate in primaries vary by the office up for election. For congress, justice of the supreme court, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Public Service Commission, the state uses a semi-closed primary. In these primaries, only unaffiliated voters and voters registered with a party may vote in that party's primary. For all other statewide offices—including state senator and representative—Louisiana uses the majority-vote system. In this system, if a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast for an office, they win the election outright. If, however, no candidate reaches that threshold, a second round of voting is held between the top two vote-getters. Any registered voter can participate in both the first-round and second-round elections.[6][7]
On May 14, 2026, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) signed HB 842, which moves the state's U.S. House races from the state's party election — with semi-closed primaries on May 16, 2026 — to the state's majority-vote system election — with the first round on November 3, 2026 — for the 2026 elections only. In future election cycles, U.S. House races will use the semi-closed party primary system.
The map below identifies states that utilize top-two primary elections or a variation. Hover over a state on the map for additional details.
QUESTION 4
A "yes" vote supports permitting same-day voter registration in the state. |
A "no" vote opposes permitting same-day voter registration in the state, thus maintaining that Massachusetts voters must register to vote 10 days before an election. |
How would Question 4 change voter registration policy?
Question 4 would permit same-day voter registration in the state.[1]
As of 2026, Massachusetts voters must register to vote 10 days before an election to be permitted to cast a ballot in that election.[2] Because early voting in Massachusetts begins 17 days before the election, some people who vote early can register to vote on the same day they cast their ballot.
Under Question 4, voters could register to vote on the election date at their polling place by providing an election official with proof of residency and then submitting a written oath testifying that they are a citizen of the United States, at least 18 years old, not prohibited from voting, and not voting in the election in a different location.[1]
Under Question 4, those who register to vote at a polling place on election day would also be registered to vote in subsequent elections. Same-day voter registration would not be available to register to vote in a town meeting or special town meeting. Additionally, voters would not be permitted to change their political party enrollment on election day for a primary election.[1]
How many states permit same-day voter registration?
As of November 2025, 21 states and the District of Columbia offer same-day voter registration on Election Day.[3] Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina offer same-day registration during at least part of the early voting period, but not on Election Day. Two states, Alaska and Rhode Island, allowed same-day registration to vote for president and vice-president.
Maine was the first state to enact same-day voter registration, in 1973, and Virginia was the most recent state to enact it, in 2020.[4][5]
Supporters
Officials
Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin (D)
Political Parties
Massachusetts Democratic State Committee
Unions
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Massachusetts American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Organizations
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
Progressive Massachusetts
Arguments
Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin: "I have long supported allowing Massachusetts voters to register to vote at their polling place on Election Day. Unfortunately, efforts to pass Election Day registration through the normal process have repeatedly been blocked in the Legislature."
Opponents
Candidates
Chester Tam (R) - Candidate for state representative, 9th Bristol District
Arguments
Chester Tam (R), candidate for state representative: "I’m voting "NO" because election integrity comes first. Allowing last-minute registration on Election Day increases the risk of errors and makes thorough verification much more difficult. Keeping a clear deadline gives election officials the time they need to maintain accurate voter rolls and run a clean, orderly election."
YES on Election Day Voter Registration registered in support of Question 4. As of May 2026, no committees had registered in opposition to the measure.[11]
Same-day voter registration in the United States
As of November 2025, 21 states and the District of Columbia offer same-day voter registration on Election Day (and often during the early voting period as well).[3] Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina offer same-day registration during at least part of the early voting period, but not on Election Day. Two states, Alaska and Rhode Island, allowed same-day registration to vote for president and vice-president.
QUESTION 5
A "yes" vote supports changing the method of calculating the state's tax revenue limit so that it is equal to the sum of the net amount of state revenue from the year prior and the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the past three years, and adding income tax revenue collected under Section 2BBBBBB of Chapter 29 of Massachusetts law to the state's definition of state tax revenue. |
A "no" vote opposes changing the method of calculating the state's tax revenue limit, thus maintaining that the state's tax revenue limit is equal to the sum of the state tax revenue limit for the prior tax year and the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the past three years, and continuing to exclude income tax revenue collected under Section 2BBBBBB of Chapter 29 of Massachusetts law from the state's definition of state tax revenue. |
How would Question 5 change the state tax revenue limit?
Question 5 would change the method of calculating the state tax revenue limit.[1] As of 2026, Massachusetts has a state tax revenue limit that sets the maximum amount of tax revenue the state can collect in a given tax year.[2] Any tax revenue collected by the state over the limit must be refunded to taxpayers the following year. Question 5 would change the method of calculating the limit so that it is equal to the sum of:[1]
the net amount of state revenue from the year prior, and
the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the past three years.
As of 2026, the state tax revenue limit is equal to the sum of:[2]
the state tax revenue limit for the prior tax year, and
the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the past three years.
In effect, Question 5 would result in a decrease potential state tax revenue limit each year compared to the current system of calculating the limit, because the new limit would be calculated based on the actual revenue collected by the state instead of the maximum amount of revenue the state could have collected.[3]
Question 5 would also explicitly add income tax revenue collected under Section 2BBBBBB of Chapter 29 of Massachusetts law to the state's definition of State Tax Revenue, thus using that revenue to calculate the state tax revenue limit. That section implements an additional 4% tax on annual income that is greater than $1,000,000.[4] The additional income tax rate, sometimes referred to as the millionaire's tax, was implemented when voters approved Question 1 in 2022.[5] As of 2026, the revenue collected from the millionaire's tax is not included in the legal definition of State Tax Revenue and is not generally used to calculate the state tax revenue limit.
When was the state tax revenue limit first adopted?
In 1986, Massachusetts voters decided Question 3, which, among other changes to the state tax code, implemented the state tax revenue limit for the first time.
It calculated the limit as the sum of the state tax revenue limit for the prior tax year and the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the past three years. Between 1986 and 2025, the state tax revenue limit has been exceeded twice, resulting in refunds of revenue to taxpayers.[3]
What do supporters and opponents say about the measure?
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, says that the existing revenue limit is flawed and doesn't protect taxpayers. He stated, "Due to loopholes and exclusions, especially the carveout for new surtax revenues, the [tax revenue limit] has only been triggered twice in 40 years. Beacon Hill always finds ways around the law as it’s currently written. This fix closes the loopholes and restores the taxpayer protections voters overwhelmingly approved."[6] The Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance agrees. A policy brief released in August 2025 said that under Question 5, "Massachusetts taxpayers would have received a refund 24 times in the last four decades. This amounts to nearly $19 billion in taxes that should have been given back to taxpayers."[3]
Protect Massachusetts' Future is leading the campaign in opposition to Question 5.[7] They say that Question 5 would negatively affect the government's ability to provide public services. A statement on their website says, "Together, these initiatives would force towns and cities across Massachusetts to lay off thousands of hard-working teachers, police officers, and firefighters, leaving families to pay the price for corporate greed. Hospitals, nursing homes, schools and colleges could be forced to close their doors, leaving us all worse off. These measures would strip billions of dollars from classrooms, hospitals, and research that Massachusetts communities depend on."[7] The American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts also opposes the measure. Their statement on Question 5 says, "This ballot question would greatly diminish the impact of the Fair Share Amendment and go against the intention of this Constitutional Amendment by forcing the state to return surtax collections in times of high inflation and unemployment—times when our economy cannot withstand additional losses of revenue."[8]
Supporters
Organizations
Massachusetts Competitive Partnership
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance
Massachusetts High Technology Council
National Federation of Independent Business
Pioneer Institute
Retailers Association of Massachusetts
Arguments
Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance: "The current revenue cap has not constrained budget growth, instead budget spending levels have grown at nearly double the rate of Massachusetts average wages and local inflation. Under the revised revenue limit rooted in actual tax collections, Massachusetts taxpayers would have received a refund 24 times in the last four decades. This amounts to nearly $19 billion in taxes that should have been given back to taxpayers."
Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute: "Massachusetts needs to abandon the tax-and-spend mentality that’s making it harder for people and businesses to thrive. If we don’t do something to control state spending and bring relief to residents, data and experience show we will continue to bleed talent and tax revenue. We look forward to educating the public on these policies that encourage fiscal responsibility and ease the burden on taxpayers as the cost-of-living continues to rise."
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance: "Fixing the 62F Tax Cap Loophole is a no-brainer. Voters wanted guardrails on runaway spending, with automatic rebates to taxpayers triggered when the state collects too much, and that’s exactly what makes the 62F law so popular. Due to loopholes and exclusions, especially the carveout for new surtax revenues, the law has only been triggered twice in 40 years. Beacon Hill always finds ways around the law as it’s currently written. This fix closes the loopholes and restores the taxpayer protections voters overwhelmingly approved."
Opponents
Protect Massachusetts' Future is leading the campaign in opposition to Question 5.[7]
Officials
Senate President Karen Spilka (D)
Unions
1199SEIU
Massachusetts American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Massachusetts Teachers Association
SEIU Local 609
SEIU Massachusetts State Council
Organizations
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center
Progressive Massachusetts
Arguments
Protect Massachusetts' Future: "Together, these initiatives would force towns and cities across Massachusetts to lay off thousands of hard-working teachers, police officers, and firefighters, leaving families to pay the price for corporate greed. Hospitals, nursing homes, schools and colleges could be forced to close their doors, leaving us all worse off. These measures would strip billions of dollars from classrooms, hospitals, and research that Massachusetts communities depend on."
Protect Massachusetts' Future: "The Massachusetts Competitive Partnership and Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance are leading an effort to gut the state’s budget and drain money from education, research, and healthcare, eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Backed by wealthy investors and CEOs, the groups are attempting to put two questions on the November 2026 ballot that would eliminate nearly 12% of state revenue to hand out tax breaks to the rich."
Phineas Baxandall, director of research and policy analysis at the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center: "The ballot initiative would make the already flawed mechanism of the 62F law far more constraining over time. By ratcheting down the growth of Computed Maximum State Tax Revenues every time actual revenue growth is slow or is reduced the next year by a 62F refund, the policy would tend to continually reduce the cap on state revenues available for budgetary purposes. The result will be often unpredictable budget cuts and the abandonment of planned public investments. On top of that, because the triggered diversions of revenue into 62F payments will tend to follow a recession, the new rules will impair the state’s ability to make investments at just the time when they are most needed to jumpstart the economy."
SEIU Local 509 President David Foley: "Corporations in the state, they want a stable workforce, and they want a stable state, and this would completely destabilize the workforce and destabilize the working infrastructure in Massachusetts. Seven billion dollars out of a $61 billion budget is devastating. It would completely upend the Massachusetts State House and what they do, and create chaos, and chaos isn’t good for business."
American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts: "This ballot question would greatly diminish the impact of the Fair Share Amendment and go against the intention of this Constitutional Amendment by forcing the state to return surtax collections in times of high inflation and unemployment—times when our economy cannot withstand additional losses of revenue."
As of 2025, Massachusetts is one of 19 states with tax revenue limits.[3][11] Additionally, it is one of eight states that have a tax revenue limit and do not have a state expenditure limit.[11]
QUESTION 6
A "yes" vote supports creating a fund for state money, titled the Nature for All Fund, to be used to fund nature conservation efforts, and requiring:
|
A "no" vote opposes creating a fund for state money, titled the Nature for All Fund, to be used to fund nature conservation efforts. |
Question 6 would create a fund for state money, titled the Nature for All Fund, that would be used to further efforts of nature conservation. Question 6 would require that 50% of the tax revenue from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses be placed in the fund. After July 1, 2028, 100% of tax revenue from the sale and use of those items would be placed in the fund. Question 6 would also create a 15-person commission that would oversee the use of the revenue fund.[1]
Question 6 would not create a new tax. Instead, it would allocate funds otherwise in the Massachusetts General Fund to the Nature for All Fund, which could only be used for nature conservation purposes.[1]
Three other states allocate all or a portion of their tax revenue from the sale of certain outdoor equipment to a state conservation fund.[2]
Georgia - 75% of all sales tax revenue from outdoor recreation equipment is placed in the conservation trust fund;
Virginia - revenue generated by sales tax, not exceeding 2% of the sale price, on specified outdoor equipment is placed in the game protection fund; and
Texas - 100% of sales tax revenue from the sale of sporting goods is dedicated to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Historical Commission.
-----
Nature for Massachusetts is leading the campaign in support of the initiative.[7]
Supporters
Corporations
REI
Organizations
Appalachian Mountain Club
Association to Preserve Cape Cod
Brookline GreenSpace Alliance
Charles River Conservancy
Charles River Watershed Association
Concord Climate Action Network
Conservation Law Foundation
Ipswich River Watershed Association
Kestrel Land Trust
Mass Audubon
Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition
Massachusetts Rivers Alliance
Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust
Mystic River Watershed Association
New England Mountain Bike Association
Quincy Climate Action Network
Save The Bay
The Environmental League of Massachusetts
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
The Trustees
Arguments
Mass Audubon: "By setting aside just a portion of the revenue already generated from the existing sales tax on sporting goods, we would be able to dedicate more than $100 million every year for the Fund without any increase in taxes."
Nature for Massachusetts: "Nothing is more important than having clean drinking water. By conserving natural areas, forests and wildlife habitats, the state can reduce runoff in our lakes, rivers and streams — protecting the quality of our drinking water and natural habitats."
Katie Theoharides, CEO of The Trustees: "These last large tracts of land, these last places of open space in our urban communities are turning over and are not going to be here in five, ten year. We have a very limited window to protect these lands. There’s threats to the climate action we’ve put in place, pulling back from our emissions targets; there’s threats to our biodiversity goals; there’s threats to our land conservation goals."
Opponents
Ballotpedia has not located arguments in opposition to the ballot measure. You can share arguments, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Potential revenue dedicated to the Nature for All Fund
According to Nature for Massachusetts, consumers in Massachusetts spent a combined $2.5 billion on sporting goods in 2022.[10] Under Question 6, 4.75% of those sales would be collected as a sales tax and placed in the Nature for All Fund. Had Question 6 been applied in 2022, it would have resulted in approximately $118 million placed in the Nature for All Fund that year.
Other natural area conservation measures on the ballot, 2026
Ballotpedia is tracking four other statewide ballot measures in 2026 on natural area conservation. One, in Missouri, was approved by voters in August 2026. Two — in Arkansas and Rhode Island — have been certified for the November 2026 ballot. One, in Colorado, has been cleared for signature gathering.
QUESTION 7
A "yes" vote supports requiring that cities and towns allow single-family homes on residentially zoned lots that meet minimum standards of at least 5,000 square feet in area, at least 50 feet of frontage on a street or public way, and access to public sewer and water services. |
A "no" vote opposes requiring that cities and towns allow single-family homes on residentially zoned lots that meet minimum standards of at least 5,000 square feet in area, at least 50 feet of frontage on a street or public way, and access to public sewer and water services. |
How would Question 7 change residential zoning laws?
Question 7 would require cities and towns to allow single-family homes on residentially zoned lots that meet minimum standards of at least 5,000 square feet in area, at least 50 feet of frontage on a street or public way, and access to public sewer and water services.[1]
According to Massachusetts' Comprehensive Housing Plan for 2025-2029, "Much of Massachusetts is covered by zoning districts that are quite simple: single-family homes with a minimum lot area of one-half to two acres."[2] In effect, Question 7 would preempt local zoning rules that require lots for single-family homes to be larger than 5,000 square feet, which is about 0.12 acres, as long as the other conditions are met.
What do supporters and opponents say about Question 7?
Legalize Starter Homes is leading the campaign in support of Question 7. A statement on their website says, "This ballot question was carefully written based on existing state law, evidence from other states that this reform works, and compelling academic studies that large minimum lot size requirements in Massachusetts make homes more expensive and scarce. If this ballot question is successful, it would be nothing less than a far-reaching expansion of opportunity for a new generation of homeowners to thrive in Massachusetts."[3]
The Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) testified against Question 7 in a public legislative hearing. Adam Chapdelaine, executive director of the MMA, said, "Zoning decisions are inherently local, and have been determined by the residents of our communities. Any attempt to preempt this local process with a one-size-fits-all policy strips local residents and officials of their role and their voice."[4]
__________
Question 7 would prohibit any law or zoning ordinance from restricting single-family residences in a residential zoning district. It would also prohibit any law from requiring a special permit or approval to use land for single-family residences in a residential zoning district. The measure only applies to residential zoning lots that measure at least 5,000 square feet in area, have at least 50 feet of frontage on a street or public way, and have access to public sewer and water services.[1]
Question 7 would allow the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to issue guidelines and policies, including dimensional setbacks, limits on building size and height, and restrictions on short-term rentals.[1]
-----
Legalize Starter Homes is leading the campaign in support of Question 7.[3]
Supporters
Officials
U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D)
State Sen. James Eldridge (D)
Organizations
Abundant Housing Massachusetts
Charles River Regional Chamber
Greater Boston Real Estate Board
Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Massachusetts
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Association of REALTORS
Progressive Massachusetts
Arguments
Pioneer Institute senior housing fellow Andrew Mikula: "Massachusetts is in the throes of a harrowing housing shortage that has raised prices and contributed to a lot of outmigration, especially among young people who are trying to form families for the first time. By allowing homes to be built on smaller lots, academic research shows that facilitates the construction of smaller, lower-cost homes and also more homes."
Legalize Starter Homes: "This ballot question was carefully written based on existing state law, evidence from other states that this reform works, and compelling academic studies that large minimum lot size requirements in Massachusetts make homes more expensive and scarce. If this ballot question is successful, it would be nothing less than a far-reaching expansion of opportunity for a new generation of homeowners to thrive in Massachusetts."
Opponents
Organizations
Massachusetts Municipal Association
Arguments
Adam Chapdelaine, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association: "Zoning decisions are inherently local, and have been determined by the residents of our communities. Any attempt to preempt this local process with a one-size-fits-all policy strips local residents and officials of their role and their voice."
Massachusetts Municipal Association: "[W]hile the petition requires access to public water and sewer, it doesn’t address the important issue of capacity — at a time when many municipal water and sewer systems are already at or near maximum capacity. The petition also does not require the homes to be affordable or sold at below-market rates."
Ali DiMatteo, legislative and policy counsel at the Massachusetts Municipal Association: "As drafted, the regulations allow new subdivisions and development as long as there is access to public sewer and water services. Just because infrastructure exists, doesn't mean that capacity exists. Many, many of our municipalities with water and sewer are at or near capacity."
Massachusetts state limits on local zoning regulations
Question 7 would place a limit on how large a municipality could require a lot size to be for single-family homes. It would add this limit to Section 3 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. Also included in Section 3 of Chapter 40A are other subjects that municipalities can not regulate through zoning.
One of those subjects pertains to single-family residences. Under state law, municipalities and other local entities can not regulate the interior space of single-family homes.[10]
New construction in Massachusetts
The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in 2024, 4.7 new housing units per 1,000 existing homes were authorized to be built in Massachusetts in 2024.[11] That year, Massachusetts ranked 45th in new housing built per capita. According to the Pioneer Institute, in 2025, Massachusetts ranked 47th in the country for new housing built per capita.[12]
A 2026 New York Times study compared new housing built in metro areas in the United States from 2016 to 2025. Of the metro areas included in the study, no Massachusetts cities had more than seven average housing starts each year per 1,000 households.[13]
Land prices in Massachusetts
According to Zippia, as of 2023, land in Massachusetts cost more than land in any state in the country except Rhode Island.[14] When considering only farm land, the World Population Review ranks Massachusetts as the third most expensive state for the price of land per acre, as of 2025.[15]
According to the Common Wealth Beacon, most housing policy advocates agree that Massachusetts land and housing are expensive, with the state "[facing] a housing affordability crisis, with costs soaring amid limited supply."[16] But they state that housing advocates disagree on how to solve the housing affordability crisis, with some stating that removing barriers to building more housing is the solution and others stating that rent control policies are better designed to solve the issue.[16]
MBTA communities law (2021)
In 2021, the Massachusetts General Court passed the MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) communities law, also known as section 3A of the Zoning Act. The law created a zoning policy that encourages middle housing in neighborhoods served by public transit. The Massachusetts state government's website on the law explained that the law was designed to solve the Massachusetts housing crisis.[17]
The law requires that MBTA communities have "at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted" without special permits or permission.[17] MBTA communities are defined as a community that hosts MBTA service, is adjacent to a community that hosts MBTA service, or has been added to the MBTA system.[17] In total, there are 177 communities in Massachusetts that are subject to the MBTA communities law. Click here to see a list of communities subject to the communities law.
Housing policy ballot measures, 2026
Between 2006 and 2025, voters decided nine statewide ballot measures related to housing policy. These measures were relatively uncommon, with no more than one appearing in any year from 2006 through 2023 before increasing to three in 2024. Of the nine measures decided between 2006 and 2025, three (33%) were approved, and six (67%) were defeated.
The nine measures addressed housing development funding, assistance programs, and rent control. All three assistance-program measures were approved, while all four rent-control measures and both housing development-funding measures were defeated. None addressed zoning or permitting specific to housing.
Expand the table below for a list of the ballot measures included in this analysis:
Housing policy ballot measures, 2006-2026 | ||||
STATE | YEAR | POLICY | MEASURE | OUTCOME |
QUESTION 8
A "yes" vote supports making changes to marijuana laws, including:
|
A "no" vote opposes making changes to marijuana laws, including:
|
How would Question 8 affect marijuana policy?
Question 8 would repeal laws that allow the sale, use, and possession of marijuana for recreational use. It would repeal laws allowing for the regulation of recreational marijuana, the state marijuana tax, and the potential for local option marijuana taxes. It would also repeal laws that permit the cultivation of marijuana in a personal residence.[1]
Under Question 8, the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for people aged 21 and older would not result in any civil or criminal penalties. However, an individual could be subject to civil or criminal penalties if more than five grams of marijuana is in the form of marijuana concentrate. Question 8 would establish civil penalties for the possession of between one and two ounces of marijuana for people aged 21 and older, and of up to two ounces of marijuana for people aged under 21.[1]
Under Question 8, the Cannabis Control Commission would oversee the regulation of marijuana for medical use, not the regulation of marijuana for recreational use. Additionally, no person would be able to advertise or promote their transfers of marijuana to others, and no person could transfer marijuana to anyone under the age of 21.[1]
When was recreational marijuana legalized in Massachusetts?
The legalization of recreational marijuana was approved by voters in 2016. That year, 53.66% of voters approved Question 4, which legalized the use of recreational marijuana, created the Cannabis Control Commission, and regulated the use of marijuana in ways similar to alcoholic beverages.
In July 2017, the month that Question 4 took effect, Gov. Charlie Baker (R) signed House Bill 3818 (H. 3818), which rewrote portions of Question 4.[2] H. 3818 increased the excise tax on marijuana sales from 3.75% to 10.75% and increased the percentage that municipalities are allowed to tax marijuana sales from 2% to 3%. It also increased the number of members on the Cannabis Control Commission from three to five.[2]
If Massachusetts voters approve Question 8 in 2026, they would be the first to repeal a voter-approved measure legalizing marijuana.
How does Massachusetts' marijuana policy compare to other states'?
As of January 2026, 24 states and Washington, D.C., had legalized the possession and personal use of marijuana for recreational purposes.[3][4]
Thirteen states, including Massachusetts, and Washington D.C., used the ballot initiative process to legalize the use of recreational marijuana. In two states, the legislature referred a measure to the ballot for voter approval, and in nine states, bills to legalize marijuana were enacted into law.
-----
Supporters
Organizations
Individuals
Kathleen Lynch (R) - Massachusetts Republican State Committee member
Arguments
Wendy Wakeman, spokesperson for Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts: "One of the things we were sold when voting to accept looser cannabis rules was that the black market would go away, and that just hasn’t happened. The black market is still thriving...We’ve seen a reduction in crime, because we’re no longer punishing the guy who has a dime bag in his pocket or whatever. But in terms of organized crime, corruption and graft, it hasn’t gone away."
Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts: "The Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) has been a disaster. The state-run organization has faced significant problems for years, including widespread mismanagement, a toxic internal culture, financial oversight, and regulatory noncompliance. A recent state audit found regulatory noncompliance created public safety issues such as the sale of contaminated products to persist and put consumers at risk. There were products that had previously passed testing but were later found to contain unacceptable levels of contaminants that can cause severe health issues, including serious lung infection. Stopping recreational sales would protect consumer health and safety by eliminating the ongoing risks from untested and mislabeled products in the recreational for-profit market."
Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts: "A 2025 study found that after legalizing commercial sales in Massachusetts, rates of cannabis use and cannabis-related disorders disproportionately increased among teenagers, particularly those with psychiatric conditions. There was an almost fourfold increase in cannabis use for adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. The conclusion of the study was 'commercialization of recreational cannabis sales…disproportionately affect adolescents with psychiatric illnesses or vulnerabilities, resulting in an increased need for psychiatric emergency care.'"
Opponents
Stop the Repeal is leading the campaign in opposition to Question 8.[8] The campaign was launched and funded by the Committee to Protect Cannabis Regulation.
Officials
Fitchburg Mayor Samantha Squailia
Former Officials
Former Boston City Councilor Tito Jackson
Organizations
Marijuana Policy Project
Progressive Massachusetts
Retailers Association of Massachusetts
Arguments
Stop the Repeal: "Voting NO protects: state and local budgets funding schools, housing, transportation, health care, and more; 20,000 jobs across the Commonwealth; [and] cannabis safety and consumer protections in our communities."
CEO of Canna Provisions Meg Sanders: "Prohibition doesn’t work. The United States has shown this time and time and time again, and this notion that ‘Oh, we’re just going to reinvigorate the medical program’ is just a fool’s errand. That’s really what they want to do. As I mentioned before, there are many things that they could do with the Legislature and the CCC to make the medical program stronger here in Massachusetts."
Caroline Pineau, local dispensary owner: "[This initiative] is driven by out-of-state alcohol and gambling billionaires, trying to protect their own pockets. This initiative would eliminate more than 14,000 Massachusetts jobs in the middle of an affordability crisis. It would eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local tax revenue. It would have ripple impacts through the economy: electricians, carpenters, architects, snow plow drivers, so on and so forth. It would replace a tax-paying industry that checks IDs and sells safe products with a market controlled by street dealers who will sell untested products to anyone of any age."
Former Boston City Councilor Tito Jackson: "They’re here to shut our businesses down. They’re here to hurt our investors, all of the folks who’ve actually put up money to be in this industry."
Fitchburg Mayor Samantha Squailia: "At a time when state and local governments are already facing significant budget pressures, repealing recreational cannabis laws would be a costly mistake. Legal cannabis generates critical revenue that communities like Fitchburg rely on to fund our schools, improve transportation, and support essential services."
Dr. Benjamin Caplan of CED Clinic: "As a board-certified family physician, I know that regulation is a critical public health tool. Health policy has to begin with reality. Cannabis has risks, and that is exactly why repeal is the wrong answer. It will not make cannabis disappear. It will make it less regulated, less visible and less accountable."
Question 4 (2016)
In 2016, Massachusetts voters approved Question 4 which legalized the use of recreational marijuana and regulated it in ways similar to alcoholic beverages; 53.7% of voters approved the measure.
On July 28, 2017, Gov. Charlie Baker (R) signed House Bill 3818 (H. 3818), which rewrote parts of Question 4.[10] H. 3818 increased the excise tax on marijuana sales from 3.75% to 10.75%, and increased the percentage that municipalities are allowed to tax marijuana sales from 2% to 3%. It also increased the number of members on the Cannabis Control Commission from three to five.
The bill also included two different local control options—one for the 260 municipalities where a majority of voters approved Question 4 and one for the 91 municipalities where a majority of voters rejected Question 4. For the municipalities that approved the measure, a referendum vote would be required to ban marijuana stores. For the municipalities that rejected the measure, the town board or city council would be permitted to ban marijuana stores.[11]
Matthew Schweich, director of state campaigns for the Marijuana Policy Project, responded to H. 3818, saying, "The law passed by voters was well-crafted and required no alteration. However, we respect the need for compromise, and while we don’t approve of every provision of this bill, we are satisfied that the outcome will serve the interests of Massachusetts residents and allow the Commonwealth to displace the unregulated marijuana market with a system of taxation and regulation."[12]
If voters approve Question 8 in 2026, it would be the first initiative in the country to repeal a voter-approved measure legalizing marijuana.
Marijuana laws by state
As of January 2026, 24 states and Washington, D.C., had legalized the possession and personal use of marijuana for recreational purposes.[13][14][15][16]
QUESTION 9
A "yes" vote would uphold House Bill 4885, which enacted several changes to the state's firearm regulations:
|
A "no" vote would repeal House Bill 4885, which enacted several changes to the state's firearm regulations. |
How would Question 9 affect firearm laws in Massachusetts?
A 'yes' vote on Question 9 would uphold House Bill 4885 (H.4885), also known as Acts of 2024 Chapter 135, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws. The law was passed during the 2024 legislative session and took effect on October 2, 2024. H. 4885 enacted multiple changes to firearm policies, including:[1]
requiring the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) to develop and maintain a real-time electronic system for firearm registration, requiring all firearms to be registered with the registrant’s personal and licensing information;
changing the law from a ban on people possessing, selling, or otherwise transferring assault weapons to a ban on assault-style firearms, except those registered by August 1, 2024;[2]
requiring a person to receive a basic firearms safety certificate to apply for a Firearm Identification Card (FID) or License to Carry (LIC);
mandating serial numbers for firearms, except antiques, and enacting penalties for possessing, creating, or transferring untraceable firearms;
allowing school administrators and licensed healthcare providers to request that a court issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which requires individuals to surrender firearms, licenses, and permits; and
permitting courts to order firearm surrender when issuing Harassment Prevention Orders, among other changes.
How did House Bill 4885 change Massachusetts' assault weapon ban?
Massachusetts has had an assault weapon ban since 1998. Assault weapon was a legally defined term in Massachusetts statute that included specific semiautomatic weapons listed in a now-expired federal law— the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. H. 4885 changed the ban in state law from an assault weapon ban to an assault-style firearm ban. The term assault-style firearm expanded the definition of assault weapon to include the named weapons from the 1998 ban and semiautomatic, centerfire rifles with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device, a semiautomatic pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device, and a semiautomatic shotgun, all capable of certain additional features specified in the law.[1]
Who supports upholding and repealing H. 4885?
The Civil Rights Coalition is leading the campaign behind a 'no' vote on Question 9. In Massachusetts, sponsors of a veto referendum advocate for a 'no' vote on the ballot question, as a 'no' vote repeals the targeted legislation.[3] Toby Leary, chairman of The Civil Rights Coalition, said, "Gun rights are civil rights and it’s our belief that, just like other civil rights that have been hard fought in our country’s history, this is one worth fighting for. If you allow the right to keep and bear arms to be eroded, then every other civil right enumerated in our Bill of Rights could just as easily be taken away."[4]
The Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence supports a 'yes' vote on Question 9. The Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence said, "Every resident of Massachusetts has the right to live free from the threat and trauma of gun violence. As this weekend’s tragic fatal shootings in Fitchburg and Springfield demonstrate, we are in the midst of a public health crisis and we need every tool at our disposal to solve it. This comprehensive gun violence prevention law gives us more of these tools, and the Coalition is committed to protecting this lifesaving piece of legislation from repeal."[5]
-----
Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts is leading the campaign behind 'yes' vote on Question 9.[7] In Massachusetts, opponents of a veto referendum advocate for a 'yes' vote on the ballot question, as a 'yes' vote upholds the targeted legislation.
Supporters of H. 4885
Officials
Gov. Maura Healey (D)
State Rep. Michael Day (D)
Unions
Massachusetts AFL-CIO
Massachusetts American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Organizations
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
Progressive Massachusetts
Arguments
Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence: "Every resident of Massachusetts has the right to live free from the threat and trauma of gun violence. As this weekend’s tragic fatal shootings in Fitchburg and Springfield demonstrate, we are in the midst of a public health crisis and we need every tool at our disposal to solve it. This comprehensive gun violence prevention law gives us more of these tools, and the Coalition is committed to protecting this lifesaving piece of legislation from repeal."
State Rep. Michael Day (D-31st Middlesex): "Nothing that we passed in this law is putting impositions on responsible gun owners. That’s the message that’s being perverted by these . . . strident folks who are trying to flip the law."
Opponents of H. 4885
The Civil Rights Coalition is leading the campaign behind a 'no' vote on Question 9.[8] In Massachusetts, sponsors of a veto referendum advocate for a 'no' vote on the ballot question, as a 'no' vote repeals the targeted legislation. Toby Leary, co-owner of Cape Gun Works, is the campaign's chairperson.[3][9]
Corporations
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.
Arguments
Toby Leary, Chairman of The Civil Rights Coalition: "Gun rights are civil rights and it’s our belief that, just like other civil rights that have been hard fought in our country’s history, this is one worth fighting for. If you allow the right to keep and bear arms to be eroded, then every other civil right enumerated in our Bill of Rights could just as easily be taken away."
Jim Wallace, Executive Director of Gun Owners' Action League: "What we have witnessed with the passage of H.4885 is the worst attack on civil rights in Modern U.S. history. This entire effort represented nothing less than a tantrum by Massachusetts politicians because the Supreme Court of the United States told them they could not treat our community like second class citizens. Those that forced this through will be forever associated with the likes of Governor Wallace, of Alabama, after Brown V. Board of Education. The fact that the final legislation was drafted in secrecy and only released hours before a vote should tell every citizen that the proponents of H.4885 knew that it could not survive the light of day."
House Bill 4885 (2024)
The Massachusetts State Legislature passed House Bill 4885, also known as Acts of 2024 Chapter 135, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, during the 2023-2024 legislative session. It was approved in the state House by a vote of 124-33, with two not voting on July 18, 2024. It was approved in the state Senate by a vote of 35-5 on the same day. It was set to take effect on October 23, 2024. On October 2, Gov. Maura Healey (D) signed an emergency preamble to put the law into effect immediately, preempting a suspension of the law by proponents of the veto referendum. The legislative vote breakdown is below.[6][1]
At the bill's signing, Gov. Healey said, "Massachusetts is proud of our strong gun laws, but there is always more work to be done to keep our communities safe from violence. This legislation updates our firearms laws in response to the Supreme Court’s misguided Bruen decision. It cracks down on ghost guns and 3-D printed weapons, which I have long advocated for, enhances our ability to prevent guns from falling into dangerous hands, and invests in our communities to address the root causes of violence. This law will save lives, and I’m grateful to the Legislature and gun safety advocates for their hard work to see this through."[11]
Randy Kozuch, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), said, "With Governor Healey’s signature, Massachusetts has enacted one of the most egregious and freedom-restricting laws in the history of the Commonwealth. We are thankful for the bipartisan group of legislators who stood against gun registries and the banning of commonly owned firearms and standard magazines. NRA will be challenging this law to restore the rights guaranteed to Bay Staters by the U.S. Constitution."[12]
Firearm policy measures on the ballot since 2010
Ballotpedia tracked the following statewide ballot measures related to firearm policy appearing on ballots between 2010 and 2025. Eight measures were approved, and two were defeated.
Removes local governments' authority to regulate firearms, including regulation of concealed carry | 2020 | 50.96% | 49.04% | ||
Implements changes to gun ownership and purchase requirements | 2018 | 59.35% | 40.65% | ||
Background checks for ammunition purchases | 2016 | 63.08% | 36.92% | ||
Requires background checks for gun sales and transfers | 2016 | 48.20% | 51.80% | ||
Background checks for gun purchases | 2016 | 50.45% | 49.55% | ||
Risk protection orders regarding firearms access | 2016 | 69.39% | 30.61% | ||
Requires background checks be performed on all gun purchasers | 2014 | 59.27% | 40.73% | ||
Prevents confiscation of firearms without due process and implementation of more extensive background checks than those at the federal level | 2014 |
