Your South Coast ballot, race by race

Argument in favor

Massachusetts deserves open government. Good government groups rank our state the least transparent in the nation. We're one of only two states where both the Governor's office and the Legislature claim a blanket exemption from the public records law. Every city, town, and state agency must follow that law, but the politicians on Beacon Hill exempted themselves.

Question 1 puts the Legislature and the Governor's office under the same public records law as everyone else. It protects constituent privacy, and the Secretary of Administration and Finance certified that it has no cost to taxpayers.

In 2024, 72% of voters said yes to auditing the Legislature. Beacon Hill is still fighting that vote, but Question 1 will give you and every taxpayer the ability to access public records directly.

You have a right to see what your government is doing with your hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Please vote YES on Question 1.

Written by Diana DiZoglio, Committee for Transparency and Democracy

Argument against

As of the printing of this publication, there was no organized group urging a "No" vote on Question 1. The information below has been compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, in part from arguments presented in the Legislature's Majority Report. The argument below does not reflect the opinions of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

The proposed law includes overly broad and poorly defined exemptions. It would exempt from public disclosure documents related to the development of public policy, but only during policy development. These records would become public once the policy is developed. This limited and temporary exemption will chill open communications by lawmakers, raising significant constitutional concerns, particularly around legislative speech and debate protections.

The narrow protection for constituent communications creates serious privacy risks. By only exempting correspondence tied to benefits or agency interaction, the law leaves vulnerable to public disclosure all other general constituent communications, such as emails and letters from citizens expressing personal political views, sharing sensitive local grievances, or criticizing lawmakers. This lack of comprehensive privacy protection will negatively affect civic engagement and deter residents from contacting their elected officials.

Ultimately, this measure creates a flawed framework that fails to deliver genuine accountability while actively compromising constituent privacy.

Written by Prepared by the Secretary of the Commonwealth (no organized group submitted this argument)

Argument in favor

A YES vote will give employees of the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) the right to organize a union and collectively bargain with their employer if they choose to do so. CPCS employees provide critical support for the constitutional right to counsel and help ensure that Massachusetts residents who cannot afford an attorney have access to legal representation. Yet, unlike other state employees, CPCS employees do not currently have the right to choose whether to organize and collectively bargain over wages, benefits and working conditions. This ballot question would allow CPCS employees to form a union if they so choose. It simply gives CPCS employees the right to make that choice for themselves. Vote YES to give CPCS employees the right to choose.

Written by Tom McKeever, Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights

Argument against

As of the printing of this book, there was no organized group urging a "No" vote on Question 2. The information below has been compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, in part from arguments presented in the Legislature's Majority Report. The argument below does not reflect the opinions of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Allowing employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to collectively bargain creates serious operational and fiscal risks for the judiciary. CPCS operates as an independent judicial branch agency tasked with providing constitutional defense to indigent clients. Introducing collective bargaining into this framework could disrupt existing management and supervisory frameworks, introduce ambiguity into lines of authority, and create operational inefficiencies.

Changes to labor relations policies of this scale could have unintended consequences for the delivery of legal services, particularly if they limit the agency's ability to respond flexibly to fluctuating caseloads, staffing needs, and court demands.

Written by Prepared by the Secretary of the Commonwealth (no organized group submitted this argument)

Argument in favor

Massachusetts elected officials should work for us, not insiders. But for years insiders have held the advantage. Many elections are over before most of us ever cast a ballot. Candidates can be blocked at party conventions. Today, two-thirds of the legislature is running unopposed. They can take voters for granted and ignore important issues like affordable housing, energy costs, better schools, and the audit 72% of us demanded.

All-Party Primaries will bring accountability and transparency to Massachusetts politics by making elections more competitive, forcing politicians to listen. All candidates appear on your primary ballot, and the top two advance to November where they need a majority of votes to win. Insiders have less control and we get fresh voices running for office.

More competition means more accountability. Legislators who know voters can replace them listen to us and deliver real results.

Vote Yes on Question 3 for accountability and competition.

Written by Danielle Allen, Coalition for Healthy Democracy

Argument against

VOTE NO ON QUESTION 3

Similar top-two systems in California and Washington have favored wealthy, self-funded candidates who can out-advertise crowded fields and the corporate PACs seeking to purchase offices, while sidelining grassroots candidates and historically marginalized and underrepresented groups such as candidates of color and women. Third-party and independent candidates would be shut out of the general election, and working-class candidates would lose out on institutional support and access to party resources.

This proposal would limit voter choice by allowing only two candidates to advance to November, even if they belong to the same party, reducing competition, lowering voter participation, worsening inequities, and narrowing debate.

Massachusetts voters deserve real choices, not a system that rewards money and name recognition over community support. Vote No.

Written by Vanessa A. Snow, Voter Rights MA

Argument in favor

A vote for Election Day Registration ensures our democracy is truly representative, secure, and modern.

This law would give eligible Massachusetts citizens the ability to register or update their address on Election Day, an opportunity voters in the rest of New England already have.

Allowing voters to register at the polls will give thousands of citizens the chance to participate in important national elections. This policy especially helps those who move frequently, like young people and renters.

Importantly, Election Day Registration enhances election security. Election Day registrants must present verified proof of residence at the polls and sign an oath backed by severe felony penalties to ensure accountability and deter fraud. Provisional ballots would be available to protect the integrity of the vote if documentation is missing.

This law provides maximum voter access with rigorous security safeguards. It is a common-sense reform that guarantees every eligible voice is heard.

Written by Norma B. Shulman, YES on Election Day Registration

Argument against

The public welfare demands that elections be protected from fraud. Same-day voter registration prejudices that welfare by eliminating the advance period during which election officials can examine a registrant's identity, residence, eligibility, or duplicate registration before a ballot is issued.

Instead, officials would be required to make those determinations at the polling place, under substantial time pressure and amid the extraordinary demands of Election Day. Errors, false statements, or conflicting records that escape detection may not be discovered until after the ballot has been cast and commingled with all others, when it can no longer be identified or withdrawn.

Election security depends upon meaningful verification before voting. This ballot question would replace advance review with hurried, same-day judgments that could create avoidable vulnerabilities in election administration, increase the risk that unlawful ballots could affect close contests, and weaken confidence that every ballot was lawfully cast in our elections. Vote No.

Written by Amy Carnevale, Massachusetts Republican Party

Argument in favor

A YES vote sets reasonable limits on the growth of state government revenue and ensures that taxpayers receive refunds when the Commonwealth collects more money than it needs.

This proposal modernizes the state's existing laws to create stronger fiscal guardrails, promote accountability, guard against future tax increases, and ensure government growth reflects what taxpayers can afford. It will not cut state spending for important services like education, transportation, or healthcare.

Massachusetts families are struggling with the rising cost of housing, groceries, and childcare. When government collects excess revenue, taxpayers deserve to get that money back instead of seeing it absorbed into a state budget that is growing faster than inflation.

With Massachusetts continuing to lose residents to lower-cost states, this ballot question puts taxpayers first. A YES vote means you keep more of your hard-earned money, and makes Massachusetts a more affordable place to live, work, and raise a family.

Written by Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts

Argument against

Vote NO on 5 to protect public schools, healthcare, and public safety.

Question 5 would put a strict limit on state revenue and investment, requiring repeated budget cuts. Healthcare costs would rise, and cities and towns would have to raise property taxes or lay off teachers and firefighters.

Question 5 would reduce the state's 'Rainy Day' fund, forcing massive budget cuts to schools, healthcare, affordable housing, and public safety during recessions, when spending to create jobs and support residents is needed most.

Question 5 would include revenue from the 'millionaires' tax', which funds schools and transportation, in the complex, unpredictable algorithm that sets the revenue limit. Millionaires would get frequent tax rebates, while the rest of us pay the price.

Question 5 would even threaten Massachusetts' bond rating, raising the cost of repairing bridges and schools.

The multi-millionaires funding Question 5 don't need public services themselves.

Vote NO on 5.

Written by Colette Berard, History Teacher, Andover Public Schools, Protect Massachusetts' Future

Argument in favor

We all need clean water and nature. Voting YES on 6 protects water, land, and wildlife in Massachusetts, without raising taxes.

Voting YES dedicates as much as $100 million/year to:

Protect clean drinking water

Prevent flooding and storm damage

Reduce pollution in rivers, lakes, and the ocean

Create and improve parks, trails, and greenspaces for public use

Conserve forests, family farms, and natural wildlife habitat

Question 6 doesn't raise taxes or create a new tax. It dedicates the sales tax we already pay on sporting goods to protecting water and nature, and requires strict oversight and annual reporting so we can see how funds are spent.

Massachusetts is home to beautiful natural areas and diverse species of birds, fish, and other animals. That's why 90+ local conservation organizations and businesses support YES on 6 to permanently protect our rivers, lakes, forests, farms, and wildlife habitat for future generations to enjoy.

Written by Mass Audubon

Argument against

As of the printing of this book, there was no organized group urging a "No" vote on Question 6. The information below has been compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, in part from arguments presented in the Legislature's Majority Report. The argument below does not reflect the opinions of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

The proposed law creates an unstable fiscal framework by permanently earmarking up to 100% of state sales tax revenues from sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and golf courses. The proposal would rely on existing state revenue streams that are currently allocated to other ongoing programs and priorities. Implementation of the measure would require the reallocation or reduction of funds presently directed toward other state initiatives, raising questions of opportunity costs and the potential displacement of existing infrastructure and environmental funding priorities.

Even if approved by the voters, the funds may not be allocated to the "Nature for All Fund," as the Legislature retains exclusive authority over appropriations decisions. This constitutional framework ensures that funding decisions remain subject to annual budget deliberation and fiscal prioritization.

The proposed law, as written, raises questions regarding fiscal impacts, programmatic displacement, and constraints on administrative flexibility.

Written by Prepared by the Secretary of the Commonwealth (no organized group submitted this argument)

Argument in favor

Massachusetts is the hardest state in the country for young adults to buy a home. The middle class is shrinking because housing costs have doubled since 2014. Many seniors are stuck in their homes without somewhere nearby to downsize.

Massachusetts residents, especially young people, are leaving the state to find a more affordable place to live, separating extended families and hurting our economy.

Requiring huge lot sizes to build a single-family home makes houses expensive, reduces construction of new single-family housing, and encourages developers to build giant McMansions to recoup land costs. Anyone who needs a low-cost, single-family suburban home is all but locked out of the market.

A yes vote would reduce minimum lot size requirements to 5,000 square feet - a size more typical of suburbs nationwide - in places with sufficient infrastructure, so we can have more affordable homes for young families and seniors.

Written by Wesley Lima, Legalize Starter Homes

Argument against

Vote NO on question 7.

Massachusetts needs more housing, but this statewide ballot measure is the wrong approach. It would override local planning by requiring every city and town to allow single-family homes on lots as small as 5,000 square feet, regardless of existing neighborhoods, infrastructure or environmental conditions.

Local officials are directly responsible to taxpayers, and this would remove significant oversight on behalf of their residents. They understand their communities best, and work with residents to plan for housing while balancing public safety, traffic, water and sewer capacity, schools, and environmental protection. This proposal replaces thoughtful local planning with a one-size-fits-all mandate that ignores the individual needs of all 351 Massachusetts cities and towns.

Communities should continue expanding housing through local planning and collaboration, not through a statewide mandate that removes local decision-making.

Vote NO.

Written by Adam Chapdelaine, Massachusetts Municipal Association

Argument in favor

MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, PARENTS, AND BUSINESS OWNERS URGE YES ON QUESTION 8

Question 8 would keep personal possession of marijuana legal, keep medical marijuana legal, and stop commercial marijuana stores

Since commercial legalization, marijuana is now the most common drug found in fatal car accidents in Massachusetts

85% of marijuana users admit to driving after and over 50% drive within an hour or less

Business owners have increased costs from higher rates of workplace injuries, increased healthcare costs, and higher turnover

For every $1 gained in tax revenue, taxpayers spend $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization from societal expenses including increased healthcare, lost productivity, and crime (like DUI's)

Modern concentrates and edibles have been linked to mental health conditions like psychosis, severe anxiety, and schizophrenia, particularly in young adults

As a result of commercial marijuana, ER visits in Massachusetts have drastically increased for teenagers with psychiatric conditions

Written by Dr. Jeffrey Morgan, MD (Ret.), Retired Oncologist and Physician and Retired Instructor of Medicine, Coalition For a Healthy Massachusetts

Argument against

VOTE NO ON QUESTION 8

Question 8 would create serious public health and safety problems by repealing the rules and regulations that currently control the production and sale of marijuana in Massachusetts.

For ten years, Massachusetts has regulated marijuana, ensuring that products are tested for safety, packaged and labelled properly, and sold in licensed businesses to adults 21 and over.

Question 8 would undo that progress, returning marijuana to the illicit market where there are no safeguards in place. Law enforcement would be forced to waste time and resources on marijuana arrests instead of fighting serious crime. Historically, marijuana arrests have disproportionately impacted communities of color. Recriminalizing marijuana would make Massachusetts less safe.

Question 8 would shut down hundreds of small businesses, kill thousands of jobs, and eliminate billions of dollars in state tax revenue.

We must not go backwards on public health and safety.

Vote NO on Question 8.

Written by Ryan Dominguez, Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition

Argument in favor

A YES vote will keep in place Massachusetts' lifesaving 2024 gun safety law. The law made vital updates, including banning ghost guns; outlawing devices that turn semi-automatic weapons into machine guns; expanding tools to help prevent firearm suicide and mass shootings; creating a firearms data dashboard to better understand gun trafficking; and more.

Thanks to our comprehensive approach to gun violence prevention, Massachusetts has a gun death rate 70% lower than the national average. Critical elements of the 2024 law are actively being implemented; they are already helping keep our communities safe.

To continue driving the rate of gun violence even lower, we must maintain the strong policies included in this existing law. A YES vote will preserve this law, safeguard important progress, and allow us to continue the work of eradicating gun violence. Repealing it would make everyone in Massachusetts less safe.

Written by Ned Notis-McConarty, Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts

Argument against

A No vote on Question 9 repeals an unnecessary reinvention of state firearms law. Before the new law, the state already had some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Chapter 135 isn't about public safety, it is a deeply flawed, 116-page piece of bureaucratic overreach that wastes valuable tax dollars and burdens local communities. Passed without proper planning, the law mandates an expensive, real-time electronic tracking system that the state hasn't funded and doesn't know how to build. It also forces local police departments to enforce a confusing patchwork of vague rules, pulling officers away from investigating violent crime to plow through piles of administrative paperwork. State agencies have struggled to explain the law, issuing dozens of clarifications for rules that treat harmless historical re-enactors and antique hobbyists like criminals. Vote no on Question 9. Demand common-sense, transparent legislation focused on violent criminals, not limiting citizens' civil rights.

Written by Toby Leary, The Civil Rights Coalition