NOVEMBER, 2026 BALLOT INITIATIVES
TODD’S THOUGHTS ON THE INITIATIVES
My votes, with explanations, on the nine Massachusetts ballot questions — November 3, 2026
Question 1: Public Records for the Legislature and Governor — YES
This is long overdue. Massachusetts is the only state that exempts all three branches of government from its own public records law, and the Society of Professional Journalists gave the state its 2026 “Black Hole Award” for it. A Legislature this opaque and this “stuck” needs far more accountability than it has, so it can start serving its constituents instead of the petty grievances, entrenched interests, and oversized egos of its members.
Question 2: Collective Bargaining for Public Defenders — YES
Of course. Public defenders at the Committee for Public Counsel Services are among the only state employees barred from forming a union, even though they work in the same courtrooms as unionized police officers, court staff, and probation officers. The ability to bargain collectively should be a fundamental right, not a hard-won privilege. (Why unions matter: Economic Policy Institute)
Question 3: All-Party Primaries — YES
This chips away at the lock-step party politics that keeps Massachusetts voters from the candidates they actually like, in favor of the ones who’ve kowtowed to the political establishment. Unenrolled voters, the majority of the electorate, would no longer have to choose one party’s ballot and give up a say in the other’s races. And it would lower the barriers to challenging entrenched dinosaurs who hold onto power without opposition. It’s a small first step, but a necessary one.
Question 4: Election Day Registration — YES
While many states are working tirelessly to limit voting, we should expand it instead. Massachusetts is the only New England state that doesn’t let people register on Election Day. The risk of registering someone who isn’t eligible is tiny, just as voter fraud has proven vanishingly rare everywhere it’s been looked for.
Question 5: State Revenue Limit and Rebates — NO
This wasn’t thought through very carefully. Yes, the current formula favors the state over taxpayers, and tightening it would add some fiscal discipline. But it would also cut into state revenue, sometimes in years where that revenue is already lean. Tufts’ independent analysis found the new formula could pay out large rebates when the economy isn’t especially strong. Worse, revenue from the millionaire’s tax would count toward the cap for the first time, so a surge in top-bracket income could be rebated away instead of funding the schools and transportation that progressive tax was created for. This initiative is really just a bad idea. (Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis on Question 5)
Question 6: Nature for All Fund — NO
A prime example of good intentions with spectacularly poor execution. It doesn’t raise a dime of new revenue; instead, the initiative earmarks existing sales tax money that currently helps fund everything else — from education to health care to infrastructure. And ballot questions can’t force the Legislature to spend money a particular way, which results in two possible outcomes: Either lawmakers ignore the earmark and it’s pointless, or they honor it while Medicaid, food assistance, and other essential services are shorted in a downturn. Tufts called it “either pointless or dangerous,” and I agree. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean it is one….
Question 7: Single-Family Homes on Smaller Lots — YES
The MBTA Communities Act and the recent ADU expansion are producing real but gradual gains, and this could help speed things up. What we really need is higher-density housing — condos, apartments, and mixed-use zoning — but that isn’t happening at anywhere near the scale required. This is a half-measure, but it’s better than nothing. It does override local zoning, and it could affect the character of some Berkshire towns, though only on lots with town sewer and water. We have a real housing shortage, and since no one is stepping up on multi-unit solutions, this is the “something” we have to do in the meantime.
Question 8: Repeal Recreational Marijuana Sales — NO
This will fail, and I don’t think I need to explain why. People in Massachusetts love their pot and aren’t going to give up ready access to it. (A September UNH poll had 71% of voters planning to vote no.)
Question 9: Keep the 2024 Gun Law — NO
Note: On this one, a NO vote repeals the law and a YES vote keeps it.
This may be the one people get wrong because of the hype. Like Question 6, it has a virtue-signaling element that gives it broad appeal, but I think that zeal is misplaced. Not because the law lacks good parts: serializing ghost guns, tightening restrictions on devices that enable automatic fire, letting health care workers and school administrators file red-flag petitions (before this law, only police and family could), and adding live-fire training and suicide-prevention instruction to permitting are all great, in my view.
But this law also does a lot that isn’t helpful. It requires registration of manual-action long guns, which national FBI data show are involved in a small fraction of homicides (less than 4%); in fact, I couldn’t find a single Massachusetts case going back 20 years (I’m open to correction). It also broadly expands the places where licensed carry is banned, which kind of defeats the purpose of a permit. Its antique-firearm provisions are confusing at best. And it doubles down on regulation in a state that already has strict gun laws and some of the lowest gun death rates in the country. None of these things improve public safety…at all. But they do place a lot of burdens on gun owners and police.
Then there’s how the law took effect. When a citizens’ petition was on track to pause the law until voters could weigh in, Governor Healey attached an emergency preamble to put it into effect immediately, removing that option. (NBC Boston: Healey moves to implement gun law, blocking opponents’ challenge). I'm sorry…but that really comes off as a sneaky, passive-aggressive way to thwart the will of voters.
So for me, this feels like a politically charged “win” for legislators who don’t understand actual guns or gun risks, and who don’t care about the burden it puts on police and lawful gun owners.
Okay…I don’t expect everyone to agree with all of this, but I hope it was at least informative. And I think informed voting is what our democracy desperately needs. Also consider reading the state’s voter guide, look at who’s funding each side, and vote your conscience on November 3. If you think I’ve gotten something wrong, please tell me. I’d rather be corrected than stay wrong. :-)
My votes, with explanations, on the nine Massachusetts ballot questions — November 3, 2026
Question 1: Public Records for the Legislature and Governor — YES
This is long overdue. Massachusetts is the only state that exempts all three branches of government from its own public records law, and the Society of Professional Journalists gave the state its 2026 “Black Hole Award” for it. A Legislature this opaque and this “stuck” needs far more accountability than it has, so it can start serving its constituents instead of the petty grievances, entrenched interests, and oversized egos of its members.
Question 2: Collective Bargaining for Public Defenders — YES
Of course. Public defenders at the Committee for Public Counsel Services are among the only state employees barred from forming a union, even though they work in the same courtrooms as unionized police officers, court staff, and probation officers. The ability to bargain collectively should be a fundamental right, not a hard-won privilege. (Why unions matter: Economic Policy Institute)
Question 3: All-Party Primaries — YES
This chips away at the lock-step party politics that keeps Massachusetts voters from the candidates they actually like, in favor of the ones who’ve kowtowed to the political establishment. Unenrolled voters, the majority of the electorate, would no longer have to choose one party’s ballot and give up a say in the other’s races. And it would lower the barriers to challenging entrenched dinosaurs who hold onto power without opposition. It’s a small first step, but a necessary one.
Question 4: Election Day Registration — YES
While many states are working tirelessly to limit voting, we should expand it instead. Massachusetts is the only New England state that doesn’t let people register on Election Day. The risk of registering someone who isn’t eligible is tiny, just as voter fraud has proven vanishingly rare everywhere it’s been looked for.
Question 5: State Revenue Limit and Rebates — NO
This wasn’t thought through very carefully. Yes, the current formula favors the state over taxpayers, and tightening it would add some fiscal discipline. But it would also cut into state revenue, sometimes in years where that revenue is already lean. Tufts’ independent analysis found the new formula could pay out large rebates when the economy isn’t especially strong. Worse, revenue from the millionaire’s tax would count toward the cap for the first time, so a surge in top-bracket income could be rebated away instead of funding the schools and transportation that progressive tax was created for. This initiative is really just a bad idea. (Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis on Question 5)
Question 6: Nature for All Fund — NO
A prime example of good intentions with spectacularly poor execution. It doesn’t raise a dime of new revenue; instead, the initiative earmarks existing sales tax money that currently helps fund everything else — from education to health care to infrastructure. And ballot questions can’t force the Legislature to spend money a particular way, which results in two possible outcomes: Either lawmakers ignore the earmark and it’s pointless, or they honor it while Medicaid, food assistance, and other essential services are shorted in a downturn. Tufts called it “either pointless or dangerous,” and I agree. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn’t mean it is one….
Question 7: Single-Family Homes on Smaller Lots — YES
The MBTA Communities Act and the recent ADU expansion are producing real but gradual gains, and this could help speed things up. What we really need is higher-density housing — condos, apartments, and mixed-use zoning — but that isn’t happening at anywhere near the scale required. This is a half-measure, but it’s better than nothing. It does override local zoning, and it could affect the character of some Berkshire towns, though only on lots with town sewer and water. We have a real housing shortage, and since no one is stepping up on multi-unit solutions, this is the “something” we have to do in the meantime.
Question 8: Repeal Recreational Marijuana Sales — NO
This will fail, and I don’t think I need to explain why. People in Massachusetts love their pot and aren’t going to give up ready access to it. (A September UNH poll had 71% of voters planning to vote no.)
Question 9: Keep the 2024 Gun Law — NO
Note: On this one, a NO vote repeals the law and a YES vote keeps it.
This may be the one people get wrong because of the hype. Like Question 6, it has a virtue-signaling element that gives it broad appeal, but I think that zeal is misplaced. Not because the law lacks good parts: serializing ghost guns, tightening restrictions on devices that enable automatic fire, letting health care workers and school administrators file red-flag petitions (before this law, only police and family could), and adding live-fire training and suicide-prevention instruction to permitting are all great, in my view.
But this law also does a lot that isn’t helpful. It requires registration of manual-action long guns, which national FBI data show are involved in a small fraction of homicides (less than 4%); in fact, I couldn’t find a single Massachusetts case going back 20 years (I’m open to correction). It also broadly expands the places where licensed carry is banned, which kind of defeats the purpose of a permit. Its antique-firearm provisions are confusing at best. And it doubles down on regulation in a state that already has strict gun laws and some of the lowest gun death rates in the country. None of these things improve public safety…at all. But they do place a lot of burdens on gun owners and police.
Then there’s how the law took effect. When a citizens’ petition was on track to pause the law until voters could weigh in, Governor Healey attached an emergency preamble to put it into effect immediately, removing that option. (NBC Boston: Healey moves to implement gun law, blocking opponents’ challenge). I'm sorry…but that really comes off as a sneaky, passive-aggressive way to thwart the will of voters.
So for me, this feels like a politically charged “win” for legislators who don’t understand actual guns or gun risks, and who don’t care about the burden it puts on police and lawful gun owners.
Okay…I don’t expect everyone to agree with all of this, but I hope it was at least informative. And I think informed voting is what our democracy desperately needs. Also consider reading the state’s voter guide, look at who’s funding each side, and vote your conscience on November 3. If you think I’ve gotten something wrong, please tell me. I’d rather be corrected than stay wrong. :-)