Question 3: what the all-party primary plan would change about how Massachusetts picks candidates
The first of a South Coast 360 series explaining each of the nine statewide questions on the Nov. 3 ballot.
NEW BEDFORD Massachusetts voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to scrap the state's party primaries for state offices and replace them with a single primary in which every candidate appears on one ballot and the top two finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election. This is the first in a South Coast 360 series explaining each of the nine statewide questions on the ballot, starting with Question 3.
The official summary written by Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell's office reads: "This proposed law would eliminate political party primaries for state elections and instead establish a system where there would be a single, all-party primary in which all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, would be listed on one ballot, and voters could vote for any candidate on the ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary would advance to the general election ballot." The summary adds that candidates for governor and lieutenant governor would run and be listed jointly in the primary, and that any group whose statewide candidates received at least 3 percent of the ballots cast in the state primary would gain political party status.
A yes vote would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections and put the top-two system in place. A no vote would make no change to the laws governing primary elections. Those two statements were written jointly by the attorney general and Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin. The proposed law, titled "An Act to implement all-party state primaries" (Initiative Petition 25-12, House No. 5003), amends Chapters 50, 53 and 54 of the General Laws and would take effect Jan. 1, 2028. It would not apply to presidential primaries or city and town elections.
The state's money agencies see no cost in it. The statement of fiscal consequences, written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, says: "The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances."
The yes side is the Coalition for a Healthy Democracy, the Yes on 3 committee, chaired by Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor who ran for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2022. "There are lots of ballots where you go down the list of offices, and there's only one name. And when that happens, we can't hold elected officials accountable," Allen said in an interview with the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism. Politicians "take voters for granted, and then that means we don't get the changes we deserve, whether that's around affordability, or housing, or whatever other issue is pressing," she said. Alex Rikleen, an Acton resident who ran for U.S. Senate this year, said he is voting yes because the current primaries are especially hard on third parties. "There is no such thing as worse for third parties than the status quo," he said.
The no side is Voter Rights MA, the No on 3 committee, chaired by political consultant Jordan Berg Powers. "We have problems with money in politics. This makes it worse. We have a problem with too many insiders and too much horse race coverage. This turns [every campaign] into a horse race," Berg Powers said in the same series of interviews. Joe Tache, the Party for Socialism and Liberation's candidate for U.S. Senate, said he is strongly opposed: "It would become much more difficult for us to make it on to the general election ballot, and our campaigns would be cut short by months."
The money is lopsided. The Coalition for a Healthy Democracy had raised almost $7 million as of Oct. 5, according to Office of Campaign and Political Finance filings reported by MassWire. Its largest donor is David "Randy" Peeler, listed as a senior advisor at the private equity firm Berkshire Partners, with $1,050,000 contributed to date; Partners in Democracy, a nonprofit where Allen is president, has donated about $82,000 in services. The No on 3 campaign had raised $184,275, most of it from the Service Employees International Union Local 1199 and the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee.
The Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University reviewed the research and talked to advocates on both sides. Its report says two states already use versions of the top-two system (California and Washington, the examples both campaigns cite); the limited evidence suggests the approach may modestly reduce polarization and slightly increase primary turnout, while also attracting more money into races. The report notes the power of state political parties would greatly diminish, though party endorsements would still appear on primary ballots, and says it is unclear whether the change would increase the number of competitive races, since many Massachusetts legislative candidates now run unopposed.
For South Coast voters, the change would reach every state office on the local ballot, from governor down through the region's state representative and state senator seats and county offices such as treasurer. Contests that are now settled in low-turnout September party primaries would instead be decided in November, when turnout is highest. Town and city elections would not change, and the state's fiscal office foresees no added cost to municipal clerks. If the question passes, the September 2026 primary will have been the last in Massachusetts divided by party.
Label: Reported by us, from the town's posted records.
How we verified this
The official summary, yes and no statements and fiscal statement are quoted from the state's Information for Voters language as reproduced word for word by the Yes on 3 campaign (the state page is JavaScript-gated). Campaign quotes come from BINJ's interviews; money figures from OCPF filings as reported by MassWire; the analysis from Tufts. Every name, number and date was checked against those records. Not heard: neither campaign answered a direct request from us today.
Corrections
No corrections to this story. If something here is wrong, tell us. Every correction is dated on the story and listed in our public log.
Sources (4)
- Yes on Question 3 campaign page reproducing word for word the Secretary of the Commonwealth Information for Voters: the AG summary, the yes and no statements, and the A&F fiscal statement for Question 3Read Oct. 21, 2026, 6:4x p.m. The official guide page (sec.state.ma.us 2026 Information for Voters, ballot question 3) is JavaScript-rendered; the campaign reproduces its language verbatim and the verifier should confirm against the state page or its PDF.
- Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism (MassWire): There Is No Easy Answer To Massachusetts Ballot Question 3, Oct. 20, 2026The Allen, Berg Powers, Rikleen and Tache quotes, and the OCPF money figures ($7 million yes side as of Oct. 5, Peeler $1,050,000, Partners in Democracy $82,000 in services, $184,275 no side from SEIU 1199 and the Mass. Democratic State Committee). Read Oct. 21, 2026.
- Center for State Policy Analysis, Tufts University: Voters Guide to 2026 Massachusetts Ballot QuestionsThe independent analysis: California and Washington comparisons, polarization and turnout evidence, party power, competitive races, 2028 start, presidential and municipal exclusions. Read Oct. 21, 2026.
- Also reported by: WCVB.