What to know about Question 3: All-party primary elections

In the Sept. 1 state primaries, Massachusetts voters selected candidates within party slates to move on to the general election. But this system could be transformed by a proposed ballot measure that would introduce a single, all-party primary.

Under Question 3 on the Nov. 3 ballot, all candidates would appear on one primary ballot, regardless of political affiliation. The two candidates receiving the most votes would then advance to the general election.

“Right now, many people in Massachusetts feel that the political system isn’t working,” Jesse Littlewood, campaign manager for the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, the leading campaign behind Question 3, told Boston.com. “It’s not representing us because politicians don’t have to listen to us, and that is because of the structure of how they get elected.” 

If passed, Massachusetts would join a small handful of states — including Washington and California — using a top-two or similar primary system for some elections.

The measure has faced pushback from across the political spectrum, with both the state Democratic and Republican parties expressing opposition. 

“It’s a solution in search of a problem,” Steve Kerrigan, chairman of MassDems, told Boston.com. “What it would do, from our perspective, is it would reduce people’s choices for who to vote for [and] significantly limit voters’ opportunities to engage beyond September.” 

What would Question 3 change? 

Massachusetts currently holds separate Democratic and Republican primaries. Voters enrolled in one of those parties may vote only in that party’s primary, while unenrolled voters may choose either party’s ballot. Independent candidates do not participate in a primary and instead qualify directly for the November general-election ballot.

If approved, Question 3 would replace this structure with a single primary open to all registered voters, featuring one ballot with all candidates regardless of political affiliation. The two candidates receiving the most votes would advance to the general election, regardless of party.

That means two candidates from the same party could face each other in November — and a party could have no candidate advance at all.

A “no” vote would leave the current party-based primary system intact.

Other provisions

Question 3 would also require candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run together in the primary and, if they finish among the top two tickets, advance together to the general election.

On the ballot, candidates would list their party or political designation next to their names. If both a candidate and a political party request it, the words “Endorsed by the political party or designation” would be added.

Question 3 also eliminates the rule requiring statewide candidates to secure at least 15 percent of the vote at a party convention to qualify for the primary ballot.

The case for Question 3

The Coalition for Healthy Democracy said that Massachusetts’ current primary system limits competition and gives too much influence to a relatively small share of voters. 

Littlewood said an all-party primary would move more of the decision-making to a broader electorate and give candidates greater incentive to appeal beyond their party’s base.

“When they don’t have to compete for our votes, they don’t have a need to listen to us,” he said. 

State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who supports Question 3, said voters are often stuck choosing “between the lesser of two evils.”

“All-Party Primaries help fix that by giving voters more choices in the primary and opening the door to fresh voices,” DiZoglio said in a statement to Boston.com. “When politicians have to compete for every vote, they start listening and delivering.”

Supporters also said that Question 3 could make it easier for minor political parties to gain influence.

Under the current system, a party must receive at least 3 percent of the vote in a general election to maintain major-party status. Question 3 would make it so a party could meet a 3 percent threshold through a primary, rather than having to reach the general election, Littlewood explained. 

“You can’t put all of the voters in the state … just into two boxes,” he said. “And one of those ways of getting more choice is with more political parties, and Question 3 would make it easier for minor political parties to exert influence by having their endorsement on the ballot and then become a major political party.” 

The case against Question 3

Voters Rights MA, a coalition of organizations leading the opposition to Question 3, has said that, based on California’s experience with top-two primaries, voters can feel “pressured to abandon their candidate of choice” in favor of better-funded candidates who have a stronger chance of finishing in the top two. 

“This misguided initiative would undermine core democratic principles by eroding the ability of political parties to select their own nominees, marginalizing smaller parties, stifling ideological diversity, suppressing general-election turnout, and amplifying the role of big money while disadvantaging grassroots efforts,” MassGOP Chairwoman Amy Carnevale said in a statement. 

Kerrigan said the system hurts less-resourced candidates and historically-underrepresented communities by requiring them to reach a significantly larger electorate in order to advance to the general election.

“What this [system] does is allows you to buy yourself to a top-two spot by buying all your signatures, using a ton of money to put television ads on, and people who are more marginalized are unable to do that,” Kerrigan explained. 

Kerrigan also described Question 3 as unnecessary because unenrolled voters are already allowed to participate in either Democratic or Republican primaries. He added that Question 3 would pose risks to democracy by limiting choices on the November ballot. 

The “sacrifice of eliminating” third-party and independent candidates, Kerrigan said, would “far outweigh” any potential gains in election competitiveness.

Voters Rights MA has also criticized the financial backing of the campaign supporting Question 3, noting that wealthy donors — largely private-equity executives — helped supporters bring in almost $2.2 million. 

“This is not a grassroots movement,” Kerrigan said. “You can’t tell me when seven donors are deciding the fate of our elections that that is good for democracy.” 

According to the Office of Campaign & Political Finance, the Coalition for Healthy Democracy received about $2.9 million in 2026 and nearly $2.2 million in 2025. Voters Rights MA, however, reported about $35,000 in receipts during 2026.

“We want to continue to give people an opportunity to cast their vote,” Kerrigan said. “Massachusetts is historically independent. Yes, we liked a lot of Democrats, but almost two-thirds of our registered voters are unenrolled. They like it that way. They don’t like to be told who they can and cannot vote for — and that’s what this ballot question does.”