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.
To register to vote in Massachusetts, please visit the Online Voter Registration page. To check your voter registration status and polling location, please visit the State's My Voter Page.
For each question, I have gathered official information and resources, along with a range of news coverage and opinion pieces representing different perspectives. While I do have my own views on these questions, I believe it's important for voters to review all available information before making their own decisions.
Please note that some linked news articles may be behind a paywall. Additionally, the order of these questions will change once the official ballot is made.
If you find an article that isn't included here, an error, or have any other comments, please reach out at: maballotquestions@gmail.com
Summary: This proposal would make most records held by the Massachusetts Legislature and the governor’s office subject to the state’s Public Records Law. Supporters argue it would increase transparency and accountability in state government. Opponents and some lawmakers have raised concerns about how it could affect internal policy discussions and legislative operations.
Summary: This proposal would grant employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the state agency that provides public defenders and other court-appointed attorneys to people who cannot afford legal representation, the right to collectively bargain under Massachusetts labor law. It does this by formally designating CPCS as the "employer" of its employees for labor relations purposes and adding CPCS to the list of agencies already subject to collective bargaining under Chapter 150E of the General Laws.
Summary: This proposal would replace Massachusetts' current party-based primary system with an all-party primary for state elections, in which all candidates regardless of party affiliation appear on a single ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary would advance to the general election, regardless of party. Candidates' party affiliation or designation would still appear on the ballot next to their names, and parties could formally endorse candidates. The law would take effect January 1, 2028.
Summary: This proposal would allow eligible voters in Massachusetts to register to vote on Election Day by appearing in person at their polling place, presenting proof of residency, and signing a written oath. Acceptable proof of residency would include a state-issued photo ID or other documents showing name and address, such as a utility bill, bank statement, lease agreement, or student fee statement. Those unable to present sufficient identification on Election Day could cast a provisional ballot and return with documentation within a specified window after the election. The law would take effect January 1, 2028, and would not apply to town meeting elections or allow party enrollment changes at a primary. This question was proposed by Secretary of State Bill Galvin.
Summary: This proposal would update Massachusetts' existing tax revenue cap law (Chapter 62F) to include the millionaire's surtax (the 4% income surcharge on earnings over $1 million) in the calculation that determines when the state has collected too much in taxes. It would also remove the current exemption that keeps surtax revenue separate from that calculation. Supporters argue the change would ensure surplus tax revenue is returned to all taxpayers as the original cap law intended, while opponents may contend it would divert funds away from the Education and Transportation Fund that the surtax was specifically passed to support.
Summary: This proposal would create a dedicated "Nature for All Fund" by directing 50% of the sales tax revenue collected from sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses into a new state fund for natural resource conservation. The money would be managed by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and overseen by a 15-member board, and could be spent on things like protecting drinking water, restoring farms and forests, expanding parks and trails (particularly in underserved communities), and preserving lands of indigenous cultural significance. A second provision, taking effect in 2028, would adjust the funding formula of a related existing state fund.
Summary: This proposal would amend Massachusetts zoning law to prevent cities and towns from prohibiting or requiring special permits for single-family homes on lots of at least 5,000 square feet with at least 50 feet of street frontage, provided the lot has access to public sewer and water. Municipalities would retain the ability to regulate setbacks, building height and bulk, and short-term rentals, but could not outright ban single-family homes that meet those minimum lot requirements. The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities would be authorized to issue guidelines and regulations to administer the new provision.
Summary: This proposal would repeal key parts of Massachusetts’ 2016 law legalizing recreational marijuana. It would eliminate licensed retail sales and commercial production of cannabis, while still allowing adults 21 and older to possess and transfer small amounts. The state’s medical marijuana program would remain in place. Supporters argue the change would address public health and safety concerns, while opponents say it would dismantle a regulated industry, reduce tax revenue, and potentially increase illicit market activity.
Summary: This referendum asks voters whether to keep or repeal Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, also known as An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws. The law made several significant changes to Massachusetts firearm regulations, including: requiring all firearms to be registered in a new state electronic system; mandating serial numbers on firearms and banning untraceable ghost guns; changing the existing ban on assault weapons to cover "assault-style firearms"; requiring a basic firearms safety certificate to apply for a Firearm Identification Card or License to Carry; and allowing school administrators and licensed healthcare providers to petition courts for Extreme Risk Protection Orders requiring individuals to surrender firearms. A YES vote would keep the law in place. A NO vote would repeal it.