Massachusetts ballot

Massachusetts voters will decide Question 1 ("Expanding the Public Records Law" in the official Information for Voters guide), a law proposed by initiative petition on making most records of the Legislature and the Governor's office subject to the Public Records Law. A citizen initiative petition placed it on the ballot: proponents gathered the required signatures, the Legislature took no vote on it before May 6, 2026, and they then filed additional signatures. Per the official statements written by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth: A YES VOTE would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. A NO VOTE would make no change to the Massachusetts Public Records Law. The state's official statement of fiscal consequences says: The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

A yes vote: A YES VOTE would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

A no vote: A NO VOTE would make no change to the Massachusetts Public Records Law. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

Massachusetts voters will decide Question 2 ("Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees" in the official Information for Voters guide), a law proposed by initiative petition on collective bargaining for Committee for Public Counsel Services employees. A citizen initiative petition placed it on the ballot: proponents gathered the required signatures, the Legislature took no vote on it before May 6, 2026, and they then filed additional signatures. Per the official statements written by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth: A YES VOTE would specify that Committee for Public Counsel Services employees may form a union to collectively bargain with their employer. A NO VOTE would make no change to the law governing labor relations for Committee for Public Counsel Service employees. The state's official statement of fiscal consequences says: The proposed law may have an impact on state finances. CPCS receives its funding, in part, from state government appropriations. The fiscal impact of the proposed law is difficult to project due to the uncertainty regarding the outcomes of any such collective bargaining by CPCS employees.

A yes vote: A YES VOTE would specify that Committee for Public Counsel Services employees may form a union to collectively bargain with their employer. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

A no vote: A NO VOTE would make no change to the law governing labor relations for Committee for Public Counsel Service employees. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

Massachusetts voters will decide Question 3 ("State Primary Elections" in the official Information for Voters guide), a law proposed by initiative petition on replacing party primaries for state offices with a single all-party primary. A citizen initiative petition placed it on the ballot: proponents gathered the required signatures, the Legislature took no vote on it before May 6, 2026, and they then filed additional signatures. Per the official statements written by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth: A YES VOTE would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections and require a single primary in which all candidates appear on one ballot, voters could vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates would advance to the general election. A NO VOTE would make no change to the laws governing primary elections. The state's official statement of fiscal consequences says: The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances

A yes vote: A YES VOTE would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections and require a single primary in which all candidates appear on one ballot, voters could vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates would advance to the general election. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

A no vote: A NO VOTE would make no change to the laws governing primary elections. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

Massachusetts voters will decide Question 4 ("Election Day Registration" in the official Information for Voters guide), a law proposed by initiative petition on Election Day voter registration. A citizen initiative petition placed it on the ballot: proponents gathered the required signatures, the Legislature took no vote on it before May 6, 2026, and they then filed additional signatures. Per the official statements written by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth: A YES VOTE would permit eligible citizens to register to vote or to update their voter registration address at their polling place on Election Day. A NO VOTE would make no change to the laws governing voter registration. The state's official statement of fiscal consequences says: The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

A yes vote: A YES VOTE would permit eligible citizens to register to vote or to update their voter registration address at their polling place on Election Day. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

A no vote: A NO VOTE would make no change to the laws governing voter registration. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

Massachusetts voters will decide Question 5 ("State Revenue Limit & Rebate" in the official Information for Voters guide), a law proposed by initiative petition on a new state revenue limit and rebates of excess revenue. A citizen initiative petition placed it on the ballot: proponents gathered the required signatures, the Legislature took no vote on it before May 6, 2026, and they then filed additional signatures. Per the official statements written by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth: A YES VOTE would change the limit on state revenue collection, tying it to prior year collections plus average wage and salary growth, and provide for a rebate of revenue exceeding that limit. A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to state revenue collection. The state's official statement of fiscal consequences says: The proposed law would put stricter limits on allowable annual revenue growth available for budgeting. As a result, the proposal would reduce the amount of money available to support the state budget, which includes local aid for schools and municipal budgets. The proposal would also reduce the amounts available to build the state's Stabilization, or "rainy day," Fund – a reserve of money set aside to help Massachusetts manage economic downturns or emergencies without raising taxes or making major spending cuts. Depending on future conditions, the proposal could change the frequency of statutorily-required refunds to taxpayers.

A yes vote: A YES VOTE would change the limit on state revenue collection, tying it to prior year collections plus average wage and salary growth, and provide for a rebate of revenue exceeding that limit. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

A no vote: A NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to state revenue collection. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

Massachusetts voters will decide Question 6 ("Natural Resource Conservation Fund" in the official Information for Voters guide), a law proposed by initiative petition on a Nature for All Fund for natural resource conservation. A citizen initiative petition placed it on the ballot: proponents gathered the required signatures, the Legislature took no vote on it before May 6, 2026, and they then filed additional signatures. Per the official statements written by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth: A YES VOTE would create a fund that could be utilized for natural resource conservation that would receive some state taxes collected on the sale and use of sporting goods and recreational vehicles, and the use of golf courses. A NO VOTE would not create this natural resource conservation fund or change how sales and use taxes are spent. The state's official statement of fiscal consequences says: The proposed law would have a significant impact on state and local budgets. While a full fiscal analysis is not feasible, it is estimated that, on an annual basis, the proposed law would automatically divert tens of millions of dollars of tax receipts that are currently supporting the state operating budget to the new fund. This proposed law would also have substantial implementation costs.

A yes vote: A YES VOTE would create a fund that could be utilized for natural resource conservation that would receive some state taxes collected on the sale and use of sporting goods and recreational vehicles, and the use of golf courses. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

A no vote: A NO VOTE would not create this natural resource conservation fund or change how sales and use taxes are spent. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

Massachusetts voters will decide Question 7 ("Single Family Homes" in the official Information for Voters guide), a law proposed by initiative petition on allowing single-family homes on lots of at least 5,000 square feet. A citizen initiative petition placed it on the ballot: proponents gathered the required signatures, the Legislature took no vote on it before May 6, 2026, and they then filed additional signatures. Per the official statements written by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth: A YES VOTE would allow single-family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet or more in residential areas, subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects of those homes. A NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to building single-family homes. The state's official statement of fiscal consequences says: If the proposed law enables the growth of housing in communities, it could provide positive new growth revenues to municipalities. However, it is difficult to project the potential scale of new growth tied to the proposed law. The proposed law thus has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

A yes vote: A YES VOTE would allow single-family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet or more in residential areas, subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects of those homes. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

A no vote: A NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to building single-family homes. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

Massachusetts voters will decide Question 8 ("Prohibit Retail Sale of Adult Recreational Use Marijuana" in the official Information for Voters guide), a law proposed by initiative petition on prohibiting the retail sale of adult recreational-use marijuana. A citizen initiative petition placed it on the ballot: proponents gathered the required signatures, the Legislature took no vote on it before May 6, 2026, and they then filed additional signatures. Per the official statements written by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth: A YES VOTE would prohibit the legalization, regulation, and taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana, and change the penalties for possession of marijuana. A NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to marijuana. The state's official statement of fiscal consequences says: By repealing the laws that legalize and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana, the proposed law would reduce the amount that state and municipal governments receive from the taxation of those sales. In fiscal year 2025, taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana raised approximately $280 million in state revenue and $50 million in local revenue. The state budget, which is supported by tax revenue, funds local aid for schools and municipal budgets.

A yes vote: A YES VOTE would prohibit the legalization, regulation, and taxation of the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana, and change the penalties for possession of marijuana. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

A no vote: A NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to marijuana. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

Massachusetts voters will decide Question 9 ("Firearms Regulation" in the official Information for Voters guide), a referendum on an existing law on keeping or repealing the state firearms law the Legislature passed in July 2024. A referendum petition placed it on the ballot: it asks voters whether to keep a firearms law the Legislature passed in July 2024 (House 124-33, Senate 35-5). Per the official statements written by the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth: A YES VOTE would keep in place the law, which increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns, and assault-style weapons. A NO VOTE would repeal this law. The state's official statement of fiscal consequences says: Since the passage of this safety law in 2024, the Commonwealth has made significant investments to implement the law including training employees, promulgating new gun licensure processes, and developing IT infrastructure. Repealing the law would require the Commonwealth to expend resources in suspending or re-directing those investments.

A yes vote: A YES VOTE would keep in place the law, which increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns, and assault-style weapons. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

A no vote: A NO VOTE would repeal this law. (Official statement by the Attorney General and Secretary of the Commonwealth.)

In September 2026, Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin's office referred to Attorney General Andrea Campbell's office complaints from local clerks about signatures on the nomination papers Shiva Ayyadurai's campaign filed to qualify for the Nov 3 U.S. Senate ballot as an independent. The Boston Globe reported that clerks in Boylston, Clinton, Concord, Stow, Townsend, Wakefield and Woburn raised concerns, including signatures that appeared to be written by the same hand; the Woburn clerk said her own name appeared although she never signed, and the Wakefield clerk said her husband's name appeared and he confirmed he did not sign. In Clinton, the clerk forwarded an email from a voter who reported that a person collecting signatures outside a Hudson market told her she could sign other people's names; the sources do not say who that person was or whether they were connected to the campaign. The Globe reported that Campbell's spokesperson said the office had received the referral and was reviewing it. The Concord Bridge reported that Concord's clerk flagged eight signatures that seemed written by the same hand and certified 150 signatures including those eight, and that the Secretary's office said local officials must certify names even if they suspect fraud because the proper venue for fraud allegations is the State Ballot Law Commission; its spokesperson said no one filed an objection with the commission, and Ayyadurai remains on the ballot. The sources do not say who collected the questioned signatures or who may have written them, and no finding or charge against Ayyadurai or his campaign had been reported as of Oct 5, 2026. The Globe said Ayyadurai could not immediately be reached for comment, and his campaign did not respond to the Concord Bridge.

Tyngsborough voters will decide whether to authorize a Proposition 2½ debt exclusion to fund the acquisition of 100 Potash Hill Road and the design of a future public safety building at the site. The Select Board set the special town election at its Sept 21, 2026 meeting. A debt exclusion lets the town raise property taxes above the Proposition 2½ limit only to pay the debt for the specific project, for the life of that borrowing. The official ballot question wording was not posted as of this research.

A yes vote: A yes vote would authorize a debt exclusion so the town could raise property taxes above the Proposition 2½ levy limit to pay the borrowing for acquiring 100 Potash Hill Road and designing a future public safety building there.

A no vote: A no vote would not authorize the debt exclusion; the borrowing costs could not be raised outside the Proposition 2½ levy limit.

Voters in six Franklin County towns (Bernardston, Gill, Leyden, Montague, Northfield and Warwick) vote Oct 6, 2026, noon to 8 p.m., on whether to establish the Great River Regional School District, which would merge the Gill-Montague and Pioneer Valley regional school districts. Under the ballot text, if a majority of voters present and voting in each of the six towns says yes, the six-town agreement takes effect; if Warwick votes no but the other five approve, a five-town district without Warwick forms instead. Either way, full operation and dissolving the two existing districts needs special legislation, and the agreement needs state education commissioner approval. The Six-Town Regional Planning Board's site says a transition would run through June 2028.

A yes vote: Accepts the state regional-school-district law provisions to establish the Great River Regional School District, under the six-town or five-town regional agreement depending on the town-by-town results; operation also requires special legislation and state approval.

A no vote: Does not accept establishing the Great River Regional School District; if the other five towns approve and only Warwick votes no, the five-town agreement applies instead.

Voters in the 19 member municipalities of the Franklin County Regional Vocational Technical School District (Bernardston, Buckland, Colrain, Conway, Deerfield, Erving, Gill, Greenfield, Heath, Leyden, Montague, New Salem, Northfield, Orange, Shelburne, Sunderland, Warwick, Wendell and Whately) vote Oct 6, 2026, noon to 8 p.m., on a district school committee vote of June 10, 2026 to borrow up to $236,572,983 to design, construct, equip and furnish a new Franklin County Technical School at 82 Industrial Boulevard, Turners Falls. The vote text says any Massachusetts School Building Authority grant would be no more than the lesser of 66.27% of eligible costs or the maximum grant the authority sets, and the borrowing authorized would be reduced by any grant in the funding agreement. Press reports say a simple majority of all district voters decides the question.

A yes vote: Approves the District School Committee's June 10, 2026 vote authorizing the District to borrow up to $236,572,983 for a new Franklin County Technical School at 82 Industrial Boulevard, Turners Falls; the borrowing is reduced by any School Building Authority grant in the project funding agreement.

A no vote: Does not approve the district's June 10, 2026 vote to borrow for the new school building.