What's on your Nov. 3 ballot, in 15 South Coast towns

Your ballotEvery race on South Coast ballots

Races and questions are listed in ballot order. Every candidate is shown the same way, in the order the ballot prints them, with names as printed.

Your marks stay in this browser on this device. Nothing you mark is sent anywhere, and you can clear it at any time.

Candidates

1. Senator in CongressVote for one

   On every South Coast ballot.

   • EDWARD J. MARKEYDemocratic, MaldenIncumbentCampaign site for Edward J. Markey
   • JOHN DEATONRepublican, BoltonCampaign site for John Deaton
   • SHIVA AYYADURAIIndependent, BelmontCampaign site for Shiva Ayyadurai
   • JOE TACHESocialism and Liberation, BostonCampaign site for Joe Tache
   • Write-inA name that is not printed

   Clear this mark: Senator in Congress
2. Governor and Lieutenant GovernorVote for one

   On every South Coast ballot.

   Governor and lieutenant governor are elected together as a ticket; one vote covers both.

   The ballot prints the ticket without addresses.

   • HEALEY AND DRISCOLLDemocraticIncumbentCampaign site for Healey and Driscoll
   • MINOGUE AND OLIVERRepublicanCampaign site for Minogue and Oliver
   • JAMES AND KITTREDGEIndependentCampaign site for James and Kittredge
   • Write-inA name that is not printed

   Clear this mark: Governor and Lieutenant Governor
3. Attorney GeneralVote for one

   On every South Coast ballot.

   • ANDREA JOY CAMPBELLDemocratic, DartmouthIncumbentCampaign site for Andrea Joy Campbell
   • MICHAEL C. WALSHRepublican, Lynnfield

     No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

   • Write-inA name that is not printed

   Clear this mark: Attorney General
4. Secretary of StateVote for one

   On every South Coast ballot.

   • WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVINDemocratic, BostonIncumbent

     No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

   • ANNE R. BRENSLEYRepublican, WaylandCampaign site for Anne R. Brensley
   • Write-inA name that is not printed

   Clear this mark: Secretary of State
5. TreasurerVote for one

   On every South Coast ballot.

   • DEBORAH B. GOLDBERGDemocratic, BrooklineIncumbentCampaign site for Deborah B. Goldberg
   • ELIZABETH DIONNERepublican, BelmontCampaign site for Elizabeth Dionne
   • Write-inA name that is not printed

   Clear this mark: Treasurer
6. AuditorVote for one

   On every South Coast ballot.

   • DIANA DiZOGLIODemocratic, MethuenIncumbentCampaign site for Diana DiZoglio
   • AL OZONOFFLibertarian, Medford

     No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

   • Write-inA name that is not printed

   Clear this mark: Auditor
7. Representative in Congress, Fourth DistrictVote for one

   On the ballot in Dighton, Fall River, Freetown, Rehoboth, Somerset, Swansea.

   • JAKE AUCHINCLOSSDemocratic, NewtonIncumbentCampaign site for Jake Auchincloss
   • THOMAS STALCUPRepublican, Brookline

     No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

   • Write-inA name that is not printed

   Clear this mark: Representative in Congress, Fourth District
8. Representative in Congress, Ninth DistrictVote for one

   On the ballot in Acushnet, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Marion, Mattapoisett, New Bedford, Rochester, Wareham, Westport.

   • BILL KEATINGDemocratic, BourneIncumbent

     No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

   • R. TYLER MACALLISTERRepublican, Mattapoisett

     No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

   • Write-inA name that is not printed

   Clear this mark: Representative in Congress, Ninth District
9. Councillor (Governor's Council), First DistrictVote for one

   On every South Coast ballot.

   • JOSEPH C. FERREIRADemocratic, SwanseaIncumbent

     No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

   • Write-inA name that is not printed

   Clear this mark: Councillor (Governor's Council), First District
10. Senator in General Court, First Bristol and Plymouth DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Fall River, Freetown, Rochester, Somerset, Swansea, Westport.

    • MICHAEL J. RODRIGUESDemocratic, WestportIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • GABRIEL BOOMER AMARALRepublican, Fall River

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Senator in General Court, First Bristol and Plymouth District
11. Senator in General Court, Second Bristol and Plymouth DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Acushnet, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Mattapoisett, New Bedford.

    • MARK C.W. MONTIGNYDemocratic, New BedfordIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • ROBERT SCOTT McCONNELLRepublican, Fairhaven

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Senator in General Court, Second Bristol and Plymouth District
12. Senator in General Court, Third Bristol and Plymouth DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Dighton, Marion, Rehoboth, Wareham.

    • KELLY A. DOONERRepublican, TauntonIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Senator in General Court, Third Bristol and Plymouth District
13. Representative in General Court, Second Plymouth DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Wareham.

    • JOHN ROBERT GASKEYRepublican, CarverIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • SARAH G. HEWINSDemocratic, Carver

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Representative in General Court, Second Plymouth District
14. Representative in General Court, Fourth Bristol DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Rehoboth, Swansea (4, 5).

    • STEVEN S. HOWITTRepublican, SeekonkIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Representative in General Court, Fourth Bristol District
15. Representative in General Court, Fifth Bristol DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Dighton, Somerset, Swansea (1, 2, 3).

    • JUSTIN E. THURBERRepublican, SomersetIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • JAMISON D. SOUZADemocratic, Somerset

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Representative in General Court, Fifth Bristol District
16. Representative in General Court, Sixth Bristol DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Fall River (Ward 5, B, Ward 5, C, Ward 6, C, Ward 7, A, Ward 7, B, Ward 7, C, Ward 8, A, Ward 8, B, Ward 8, C, Ward 9, A, Ward 9, B, Ward 9, C), Freetown (1).

    • CAROLE A. FIOLADemocratic, Fall RiverIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • ROBERT G. ANCTILRepublican, Freetown

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Representative in General Court, Sixth Bristol District
17. Representative in General Court, Seventh Bristol DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Fall River (Ward 1, B, Ward 1, C, Ward 2, A, Ward 2, B, Ward 2, C, Ward 3, A, Ward 3, B, Ward 3, C, Ward 4, A, Ward 4, B, Ward 4, C, Ward 5, A).

    • ALAN SILVIADemocratic, Fall RiverIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • TALOS D. FARRISRepublican, Fall River

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Representative in General Court, Seventh Bristol District
18. Representative in General Court, Eighth Bristol DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Acushnet (2, 3), Fall River (Ward 1, A, Ward 6, A, Ward 6, B), Freetown (2, 3), New Bedford (Ward 1, B1, Ward 1, C), Westport.

    • STEVEN J. OUELLETTEDemocratic, WestportIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • JESSE W. ST. GELAISRepublican, Acushnet

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Representative in General Court, Eighth Bristol District
19. Representative in General Court, Ninth Bristol DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Dartmouth, New Bedford (Ward 1, D, Ward 1, E, Ward 1, F).

    Neither candidate is printed as a candidate for re-election.

    • EDWARD M. PACHECODemocratic, Dartmouth

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • CHESTER M. TAMRepublican, DartmouthCampaign site for Chester M. Tam
    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Representative in General Court, Ninth Bristol District
20. Representative in General Court, Tenth Bristol DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Acushnet (1, 2A), Fairhaven, Marion, Mattapoisett, New Bedford (Ward 1, A, Ward 1, B, Ward 1, C1), Rochester.

    • MARK D. SYLVIADemocratic, FairhavenIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • BRENDALEE A. SMITHRepublican, Fairhaven

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Representative in General Court, Tenth Bristol District
21. Representative in General Court, Eleventh Bristol DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in New Bedford (Ward 1, A1, Ward 2, A, Ward 2, B, Ward 2, C, Ward 2, D, Ward 2, E, Ward 2, F, Ward 3, A, Ward 3, B, Ward 3, C, Ward 3, D, Ward 3, F1, Ward 4, A1, Ward 4, B, Ward 4, C, Ward 4, D, Ward 4, F).

    Only New Bedford precincts are in this district.

    • Christopher M. HendricksDemocratic

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

      The printed name, hometown and re-election line are unconfirmed. Check with your town clerk.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Representative in General Court, Eleventh Bristol District
22. Representative in General Court, Thirteenth Bristol DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in New Bedford (Ward 3, E, Ward 3, F, Ward 4, A, Ward 4, E, Ward 5, A, Ward 5, B, Ward 5, C, Ward 5, D, Ward 5, E, Ward 5, F, Ward 6, A, Ward 6, B, Ward 6, C, Ward 6, D, Ward 6, E, Ward 6, F).

    Only New Bedford precincts are in this district. A Republican write-in received 88 votes in the Sept. 1 primary; whether any Republican is on the Nov. 3 ballot is not confirmed: check with your town clerk.

    • Antonio F.D. CabralDemocratic, New Bedford

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

      The printed name and re-election line are unconfirmed. Check with your town clerk.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Representative in General Court, Thirteenth Bristol District
23. District Attorney, Bristol DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Acushnet, Dartmouth, Dighton, Fairhaven, Fall River, Freetown, New Bedford, Rehoboth, Somerset, Swansea, Westport.

    Neither candidate is printed as a candidate for re-election.

    • SETH THOMAS AITKENRepublican, Swansea

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW MARKEYDemocratic, Dartmouth

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: District Attorney, Bristol District
24. Register of Probate, Bristol CountyVote for one

    On the ballot in Acushnet, Dartmouth, Dighton, Fairhaven, Fall River, Freetown, New Bedford, Rehoboth, Somerset, Swansea, Westport.

    • THOMAS CLEARY HOYE, JR.Democratic, TauntonIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • MELANIE PATENAUDE LAYDENIndependent, Taunton

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Register of Probate, Bristol County
25. County Treasurer, Bristol CountyVote for one

    On the ballot in Acushnet, Dartmouth, Dighton, Fairhaven, Fall River, Freetown, New Bedford, Rehoboth, Somerset, Swansea, Westport.

    • CHRISTOPHER T. SAUNDERSDemocratic, New BedfordIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: County Treasurer, Bristol County
26. County Commissioner, Bristol CountyVote for one

    On the ballot in Acushnet, Dartmouth, Dighton, Fairhaven, Fall River, Freetown, New Bedford, Rehoboth, Somerset, Swansea, Westport.

    • JOHN THOMAS SAUNDERSDemocratic, New BedfordIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: County Commissioner, Bristol County
27. District Attorney, Plymouth DistrictVote for one

    On the ballot in Marion, Mattapoisett, Rochester, Wareham.

    • TIMOTHY J. CRUZRepublican, MarshfieldIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: District Attorney, Plymouth District
28. Register of Probate, Plymouth CountyVote for one

    On the ballot in Marion, Mattapoisett, Rochester, Wareham.

    • MATTHEW JOSEPH McDONOUGHDemocratic, MarshfieldIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Register of Probate, Plymouth County
29. County Treasurer, Plymouth CountyVote for one

    On the ballot in Marion, Mattapoisett, Rochester, Wareham.

    • THOMAS J. O'BRIENDemocratic, PlymouthIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: County Treasurer, Plymouth County
30. County Commissioner, Plymouth CountyVote for one

    On the ballot in Marion, Mattapoisett, Rochester, Wareham.

    • RHONDA L. NYMANDemocratic, Hanover

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • ANTHONY THOMAS O'BRIEN, SR.Republican, Pembroke

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: County Commissioner, Plymouth County
31. Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Berkley seat (2 years)Vote for one

    On the ballot in Freetown, Dighton, Rehoboth.

    Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless of where you reside in the District." Dighton and Rehoboth are member towns with seats on this list: check with your town clerk.

    Nonpartisan office; the ballot prints no party or designation.

    • RICHARD J. SPADA, JR.BerkleyIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • JACQUELINE MACHAMERBerkley

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Berkley seat (2 years)
32. Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Bridgewater seat (2 years)Vote for one

    On the ballot in Freetown, Dighton, Rehoboth.

    Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless of where you reside in the District." Dighton and Rehoboth are member towns with seats on this list: check with your town clerk.

    • MICHAEL JOSEPH DOLANNonpartisan office; the ballot prints no party or designation., BridgewaterIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Bridgewater seat (2 years)
33. Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Dighton seat (2 years)Vote for one

    On the ballot in Freetown, Dighton, Rehoboth.

    Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless of where you reside in the District." Dighton and Rehoboth are member towns with seats on this list: check with your town clerk.

    • EDWARD FREEMAN DUTRA, JR.Nonpartisan office; the ballot prints no party or designation., DightonIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Dighton seat (2 years)
34. Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Freetown seat (2 years)Vote for one

    On the ballot in Freetown, Dighton, Rehoboth.

    Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless of where you reside in the District." Dighton and Rehoboth are member towns with seats on this list: check with your town clerk. No candidate is printed for this seat; the ballot offers a write-in line only.

    • Write-inNo name is printed for this seat. The ballot has a write-in line.

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Freetown seat (2 years)
35. Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Middleborough seat (2 years)Vote for one

    On the ballot in Freetown, Dighton, Rehoboth.

    Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless of where you reside in the District." Dighton and Rehoboth are member towns with seats on this list: check with your town clerk.

    • GEORGE L. RANDALL, IIINonpartisan office; the ballot prints no party or designation., MiddleboroughIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Middleborough seat (2 years)
36. Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Raynham seat (2 years)Vote for one

    On the ballot in Freetown, Dighton, Rehoboth.

    Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless of where you reside in the District." Dighton and Rehoboth are member towns with seats on this list: check with your town clerk.

    • TIMOTHY J. HOLICKNonpartisan office; the ballot prints no party or designation., RaynhamIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Raynham seat (2 years)
37. Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Rehoboth seat (2 years)Vote for one

    On the ballot in Freetown, Dighton, Rehoboth.

    Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless of where you reside in the District." Dighton and Rehoboth are member towns with seats on this list: check with your town clerk.

    • JAMES W. CLARKNonpartisan office; the ballot prints no party or designation., RehobothIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Rehoboth seat (2 years)
38. Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Taunton seat (2 years)Vote for two

    On the ballot in Freetown, Dighton, Rehoboth.

    Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Bristol-Plymouth Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless of where you reside in the District." Dighton and Rehoboth are member towns with seats on this list: check with your town clerk.

    Nonpartisan office; the ballot prints no party or designation.

    • ESTELE CHRISTINE BORGESTauntonIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • LOUIS BORGES, JR.TauntonIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Bristol-Plymouth, Taunton seat (2 years)
39. Regional School Committee, Upper Cape Cod, Bourne seat (4 years)Vote for one

    On the ballot in Wareham, Marion.

    Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless where you reside in the District."

    Nonpartisan office; the ballot prints no party or designation.

    • DAVID P. SAMPSONBourneIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • TIMOTHY N. DERBYBourne

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Upper Cape Cod, Bourne seat (4 years)
40. Regional School Committee, Upper Cape Cod, Falmouth seat (4 years)Vote for one

    On the ballot in Wareham, Marion.

    Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless where you reside in the District."

    • THOMAS PAUL CORRIVEAUNonpartisan office; the ballot prints no party or designation., FalmouthIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Upper Cape Cod, Falmouth seat (4 years)
41. Regional School Committee, Upper Cape Cod, Sandwich seat (4 years)Vote for one

    On the ballot in Wareham, Marion.

    Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless where you reside in the District."

    • MICHAEL D. DEGANNonpartisan office; the ballot prints no party or designation., SandwichIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Upper Cape Cod, Sandwich seat (4 years)
42. Regional School Committee, Upper Cape Cod, Wareham seat (4 years)Vote for one

    On the ballot in Wareham, Marion.

    Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School District Committee. The ballot says: "You may vote for every position on the Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School District Committee, regardless where you reside in the District."

    • DOMINIC A. CAMMARANO, JR.Nonpartisan office; the ballot prints no party or designation., WarehamIncumbent

      No official campaign website confirmed as of Oct. 23, 2026.

    • Write-inA name that is not printed

    Clear this mark: Regional School Committee, Upper Cape Cod, Wareham seat (4 years)

Ballot questions

1. Question 1Expanding the Public Records Law

   Law proposed by initiative petition

   In short Would make most records held by the Legislature and the Governor's office public under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, with exemptions for policy development documents and some constituent communications.

   Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?

   YesA YES VOTE would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law.

   NoA NO VOTE would make no change to the Massachusetts Public Records Law.

   Cost, as the state states it The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

   Argument for

   Massachusetts deserves open government. Good government groups rank our state the least transparent in the nation.

   Argument against

   As of the printing of this book, 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.

   Read both full arguments on Question 1

   Argument for

   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.

   Diana DiZoglio, Committee for Transparency and Democracy

   Argument against

   As of the printing of this book, 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.

   Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, under M.G.L. c. 54, section 54

   Our explainer on Question 1 | The state's page for Question 1

   Clear this mark: Question 1
2. Question 2Collective Bargaining for CPCS Employees

   Law proposed by initiative petition

   In short Would allow employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) to form a union and bargain collectively with their employer.

   Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?

   YesA YES VOTE would specify that Committee for Public Counsel Services employees may form a union to collectively bargain with their employer.

   NoA NO VOTE would make no change to the law governing labor relations for Committee for Public Counsel Service employees.

   Cost, as the state states it 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.

   Argument for

   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.

   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.

   Read both full arguments on Question 2

   Argument for

   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.

   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.

   Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, under M.G.L. c. 54, section 54

   Our explainer on Question 2 | The state's page for Question 2

   Clear this mark: Question 2
3. Question 3State Primary Elections

   Law proposed by initiative petition

   In short Would replace separate party primaries for state offices with a single all-party primary, with the top two finishers advancing to the general election.

   Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?

   YesA 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.

   NoA NO VOTE would make no change to the laws governing primary elections.

   Cost, as the state states it The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances

   Argument for

   Massachusetts elected officials should work for us, not insiders. But for years insiders have held the advantage.

   Argument against

   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.

   Read both full arguments on Question 3

   Argument for

   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.

   Danielle Allen, Coalition for Healthy Democracy

   Argument against

   VOTE NO ON QUESTION 3

   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.

   Vanessa A. Snow, Voter Rights MA

   Our explainer on Question 3 | The state's page for Question 3

   Clear this mark: Question 3
4. Question 4Election Day Registration

   Law proposed by initiative petition

   In short Would let eligible people register to vote, or update their registration address, at their polling place on Election Day, starting Jan. 1, 2028.

   Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?

   YesA YES VOTE would permit eligible citizens to register to vote or to update their voter registration address at their polling place on Election Day.

   NoA NO VOTE would make no change to the laws governing voter registration.

   Cost, as the state states it The proposed law has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.

   Argument for

   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.

   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.

   Read both full arguments on Question 4

   Argument for

   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.

   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.

   Amy Carnevale, Massachusetts Republican Party

   Our explainer on Question 4 | The state's page for Question 4

   Clear this mark: Question 4
5. Question 5State Revenue Limit & Rebate

   Law proposed by initiative petition

   In short Would limit yearly state revenue to the prior year's amount plus the three-year average growth of Massachusetts wages and salaries, and refund any excess to taxpayers, starting July 1, 2027.

   Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?

   YesA 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.

   NoA NO VOTE would make no change in the law relative to state revenue collection.

   Cost, as the state states it 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.

   Argument for

   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.

   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.

   Read both full arguments on Question 5

   Argument for

   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.

   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.

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

   Our explainer on Question 5 | The state's page for Question 5

   Clear this mark: Question 5
6. Question 6Natural Resource Conservation Fund

   Law proposed by initiative petition

   In short Would create a Nature for All Fund for natural resource conservation, funded, subject to legislative appropriation, from state sales taxes on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses.

   Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?

   YesA 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.

   NoA NO VOTE would not create this natural resource conservation fund or change how sales and use taxes are spent.

   Cost, as the state states it 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.

   Argument for

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

   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.

   Read both full arguments on Question 6

   Argument for

   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.

   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.

   Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, under M.G.L. c. 54, section 54

   Our explainer on Question 6 | The state's page for Question 6

   Clear this mark: Question 6
7. Question 7Single Family Homes

   Law proposed by initiative petition

   In short Would allow single-family homes on residential lots of at least 5,000 square feet with at least 50 feet of frontage and public water and sewer, with cities and towns still able to set some rules.

   Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?

   YesA 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.

   NoA NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to building single-family homes.

   Cost, as the state states it 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.

   Argument for

   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.

   Argument against

   Vote NO on question 7. Massachusetts needs more housing, but this statewide ballot measure is the wrong approach.

   Read both full arguments on Question 7

   Argument for

   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.

   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.

   Adam Chapdelaine, Massachusetts Municipal Association

   Our explainer on Question 7 | The state's page for Question 7

   Clear this mark: Question 7
8. Question 8Prohibit Retail Sale of Adult Recreational Use Marijuana

   Law proposed by initiative petition

   In short Would end the legal retail sale of recreational marijuana while keeping possession of up to 1 ounce legal for adults 21 and older, starting Jan. 1, 2028.

   Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2026?

   YesA 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.

   NoA NO VOTE would make no change to the law relative to marijuana.

   Cost, as the state states it 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.

   Argument for

   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.

   Argument against

   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.

   Read both full arguments on Question 8

   Argument for

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

   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

   Dr. Jeffrey Morgan, MD (Ret.), Coalition For a Healthy Massachusetts

   Argument against

   VOTE NO ON QUESTION 8

   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.

   Ryan Dominguez, Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition

   Our explainer on Question 8 | The state's page for Question 8

   Clear this mark: Question 8
9. Question 9Firearms Regulation

   Referendum on an existing law

   In short Asks voters whether to keep the 2024 state firearms law, which covers ghost guns, machine gun devices, assault-style weapons, licensing and other rules.

   Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives on July 18, 2024 by a vote of 124 to 33, and approved by the Senate on July 18, 2024 by a vote of 35 to 5?

   YesA YES VOTE would keep in place the law, which increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns, and assault-style weapons.

   NoA NO VOTE would repeal this law.

   Cost, as the state states it 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.

   Argument for

   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.

   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.

   Read both full arguments on Question 9

   Argument for

   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.

   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.

   Toby Leary, The Civil Rights Coalition

   Our explainer on Question 9 | The state's page for Question 9

   Clear this mark: Question 9
10. Question 10, Swansea onlySwansea proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion

    Local question (Proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion)

    In short Asks whether Swansea may pay the bonds for a new grades 6 to 8 school building at the Joseph Case High School site outside the Proposition 2 1/2 property tax limit.

    As printed on the ballot Shall the Town of Swansea be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay for the bonds issued in order to construct a new school building, on the site of the Joseph Case High School at 70 School Street, of approximately 114,707 square feet and associated sitework designed to serve an enrollment of 510 students in grades 6 through 8?

    YesA yes vote would allow Swansea to exempt from Proposition 2 1/2 the amounts needed to pay the bonds for the new school building described in the question.

    NoA no vote would not allow that exemption.

    The ballot prints no yes and no statements for this question; these lines restate the question's own wording.

    The town's warrant booklet budgets the project at $149,723,734, with about $61.4 million in Massachusetts School Building Authority reimbursement and rebates, leaving a town share of $88,278,988.

    The booklet estimates the average single-family home, assessed at $494,954, would pay $141 to $200 a quarter ($564 to $800 a year) on a 30-year bond; it says that estimate assumes the full contingency is spent, "which is not typical."

    No arguments are printed for local questions.

    Our explainer on Question 10 | The town's election page for Question 10

    Clear this mark: Question 10

My ballot

Your marks, gathered on one card. You may bring notes to your polling place to help you fill out your ballot. Take them with you when you leave. Nothing on this card is sent anywhere.

Statewide races and questionsTuesday, Nov. 3, 2026

You have not marked anything yet. Mark a choice in any race or question above and it shows up here.

Print my ballotClear all my marks

Where and when

Choose your town at the top of the page to see its polling places, early voting hours and election office.

Share the guide

Send it to a neighbor. Sharing sends the guide's address only, never your marks.

• Facebook
• X
• Email
• Copy the link

Download the Story image for Instagram or Facebook Stories.