BOSTON, Mass. —Massachusetts voters could completely re-structure the way primary elections work in their state this November and give every voter, including independent voters, the ability to choose any candidate they want, regardless of party.
Question 3 would eliminate taxpayer-funded party primaries for state and federal offices, and replace them with a single, nonpartisan open system in which all candidates and voters participate on a single ballot.
The two candidates who receive the most votes would advance to the general election, no matter their party affiliation. This means a Democrat and a Republican could advance. Or two Democrats. Or an independent and a Republican.
It all comes down to what voters in any given district and in the state want.
For supporters, Question 3 addresses an election system in which too many contests are effectively decided in low-turnout party primaries because districts are safe for one party or the other.
Thus, the primary is where the most consequential votes are cast. That is, if the election is contested at all.
“Data show Massachusetts has the fewest competitive elections in America. Since 2014, 51% of our elections have had no real contest at all: one candidate with no opposition in the primary or the general,” writes Danielle Allen, one of the driving forces behind Question 3.
Allen is a Harvard professor, as well as the director of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation at Harvard Kennedy School and the director Democratic Knowledge Project-Learn at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education.
“Uncompetitive primaries and groups of political insiders, more often than not, decide who represents you, your family, and your neighbors, long before the rest of us ever see a ballot,” Allen said.
“And the solutions to our ever-increasing list of problems—affordability, housing, healthcare, transportation, schools, the environment—are ignored by people in power who don’t feel driven enough to deliver.
Meanwhile, opponents assert that replacing party-controlled primaries with a nonpartisan open model would create a system in which money and name recognition determine which two candidates survive to November.
For independent voters, Question 3 gives them more choices in the primary, thus providing a greater incentive to participate. However, opponents point out that independent and third party candidates could find it harder to make the November ballot.
For reference, this exact primary model is in place in California and Washington. Alaska uses a nonpartisan open primary, but advances 4 candidates to November.
What Does the Ballot Say?
Question 3 asks voters whether they approve a new law that would eliminate separate party primaries and create one all-candidate primary. Here is what the language says:
“This proposed law would eliminate political party primaries for state elections and instead establish a system where there would be a single, all-party primary in which all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, would be listed on one ballot, and voters could vote for any candidate on the ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes in the primary would advance to the general election ballot.”
But there is more. The initiative also says: “This proposed law would require candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run and be listed jointly on the ballot in the primary.”
And, “This proposed law would provide political party status to any group whose candidates for any statewide office received at least 3% of the ballots cast in the state primary.”
A Yes vote adopts the all-candidate, top-two primary.
A No vote keeps Massachusetts’ existing party-primary system.
How Massachusetts Elections Work Now
Massachusetts uses what is commonly called a semi-open partisan primary system. Each party has its own primary. Democrats choose Democratic nominees and Republicans choose Republican nominees.
Registered Democrats and Republicans are limited to their own party’s primary. Independent voters —registered unenrolled in Massachusetts—can choose either party’s ballot without joining that party, but they have to stick with the candidates of that party.
In other words, if a voter likes a Republican in a gubernatorial race, but a Democrat in a congressional race, they can’t vote for both of those candidates in the same election. Their choices are strictly Republican or strictly Democrat.
Under Question 3, a voter could cast their ballot for a Republican in one race, a Democrat in another, and an independent in a third. This choice is possible because every candidate appears on the same ballot given to every voter.
Hence the term “all-candidate primary.”
The difference is the current primary model is a party-nominated system. Question 3 changes the structure of elections to be a voter-nominated system.
And Massachusetts has a lot of voters outside the two parties. In fact, it has the highest percentage of registered independents of any state in the country. Nearly 65% of registered voters are unenrolled, while 26% are Democrats and 8% are Republican.
Note: This means two groups in the political minority are deciding which candidates appear on the November ballot under the current system.
What Would Actually Change?
Question 3 would cover governor and other statewide offices, the US House and Senate, the legislature, governor’s council, and various county and district offices, including positions such as district attorney and sheriff.
It would not change presidential primaries or municipal elections—very similar to both California and Washington. And, the new system would begin in 2028.
Candidates would still have political affiliations displayed on the ballot. Parties and political organizations could also have an endorsement noted alongside a candidate with the required consent.
Since the purpose of the primaries is no longer to select party nominees, Question 3 would also eliminate a Massachusetts rule that requires statewide candidates to win at least 15% support at a party convention to make the ballot.
In other words, the door is not only open to candidates outside the major parties, but more candidates inside them as well.
That provision has particular significance for Allen. In 2022, she was a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, but ended her campaign after falling short in the party convention process.
The Case for Question 3: Make Politicians Compete
Supporters make their case to voters by breaking down what is on their ballot. Or, in many cases what isn’t on their ballot. WBUR reports that 60% of state House and Senate races this year have only one candidate on the November ballot.
An earlier analysis of candidate filings found voters were positioned to have a choice between listed candidates in only 82 of the legislature’s 200 races.
The Coalition for Healthy Democracy, which leads the “Yes” campaign, argues that an all-party primary would make it harder for dominant-party districts to effectively settle elections before most voters participate.
In a heavily Democratic legislative district, for example, two Democrats could advance to November rather than having one Democrat win a September primary and face no meaningful opposition two months later.
The group’s argument in the state’s official voter guide boils down to: “More competition means more accountability.”
It’s notable that support for Question 3 spans across the political spectrum. For example, former Republican Gov. Charlie Baker announced his endorsement Monday, alongside former Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick.
“Massachusetts is at its best when we put good ideas and good government ahead of politics,” Baker said.
“All-party primaries will give voters more choice and our elected officials will have to reach across the aisle to voters from other parties if they want to be successful.”
Patrick stated that politics these days “is less about ‘red’ versus ‘blue’ than about insiders versus outsiders. Elections ought to be a competition of ideas, experience and character than about who has the better structural advantage.”
He added: “All-party primaries can enable more good people to compete, and encourage more office holders to deliver results once elected.”
Other supporters include State Auditor Diana DjiZoglio, former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, former US Rep. Joe Kennedy III, former MassGOP Chair Jennifer Nassour, former state Treasurer Steve Grossman, the NAACP New England Area Conference, Open Primaries, Veterans for All Voters, Partners in Democracy, and Forward Party Massachusetts.
Opponents Ask: What Happens to Everyone Who Doesn’t Finish First or Second?
Opposition has brought together seemingly strange bedfellows. Both the Massachusetts Democratic Party and the Republican Party oppose Question 3. Organized opposition also includes labor unions and progressive groups.
The main argument centers on the fact that Question 3 expands the field in September but guarantees only two candidates a spot in November—meaning independent and third-party candidates may have a tougher route to the ballot.
This is because they would have to finish first or second in a field of candidates that include Republicans and Democrats.
It is similar to partisan opposition in California, which also points out that two candidates from the same party can advance to the general election, leaving voters who prefer another party without a candidate in November.
A lawsuit filed by Democratic State Committee members Martina Jackson and Ann Roosevelt states:
“By restricting general election ballots to only two candidates, the Petition dilutes the ‘diversity and competition in the marketplace of ideas’ in the phase of the electoral process in which policy choices are most seriously considered.”
For the chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party, Amy Carnevale, this isn’t even about alternatives to the major parties:
“Our existing party primary system is crucial to ensure that voters have an option of choosing between two alternative political philosophies at the ballot box.”
But these arguments raise an important question: Does the current system incentivize a diverse and competitive marketplace of ideas?
In 2022, Libertarian Kevin Reed qualified for the Massachusetts gubernatorial ballot and polled as high as 5%, yet the state’s major televised debates featured only Democrat Maura Healey and Republican Geoff Diehl.
The same year, 5 candidates ran for state auditor, but the major televised general-election debate featured only the Democratic and Republican nominees.
In 2024, the DNC launched a six-figure advertising campaign branding Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein (based in Massachusetts) a “spoiler” and argued that a vote for her would help Donald Trump.
The point here is not to diminish the concern that a Top Two primary could prevent a minor-party candidate from reaching November. But it adds context to the debate.
Major party officials and leaders discuss diversity of ideas and competitiveness, while promoting a system that at every level discourages both: They sue to kick other options off the ballot, keep them out of debates, and call them “spoilers.”
One question to consider is: If an independent or third-party candidate advances from a nonpartisan primary system, would they face the same obstacles to actually being heard?
The Working Families Party of Massachusetts acknowledges the current lack of competition in the state, but states in its endorsement of No on 3 that Top Two “helps the candidates who can already afford to run that kind of race.”
Specifically, the party talks about “wealthier, corporate-aligned candidates — while shutting out first-time and working-class candidates without existing donor networks.”
“Let us be extremely clear: Question 3 will not help working people build power in Massachusetts. It will do the opposite,” said Josh Wolfsun, MAWFP State Director.
“We’ve seen this exact experiment run in California. It produced longer, more expensive campaigns that made it harder for grassroots candidates to win.”
Research on this is scarce, but what does exist has shown that working-class performance doesn’t change much between party primaries and nonpartisan election models.
In 2023, Sarah Treul and Eric Hansen wrote a paper titled, “Primary Barriers to Working Class Representation,” in Political Research Quarterly. They found that raw vote share for working-class candidates was about 24 percentage points lower and they were 31 points less likely to win.
Further, they wrote:
“We find no differences in workers’ performance between top-two and standard partisan primaries.”
Opponents of Question 3 additionally argue that crowded all-candidate primaries magnify the importance of fundraising and name recognition because campaigns must quickly distinguish themselves from a much larger field.
Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis found evidence from California and Washington suggesting top-two primaries can reduce political polarization and slightly increase primary turnout.
The report also found some evidence that these primaries may bring more money into races, and it remains unclear whether Question 3 would create more competitive contests overall.
Interesting to note: In Massachusetts, 60% of legislative elections this year went uncontested. In California, only 4 state Assembly races were uncontested. There were zero uncontested state Senate races.
There is no guarantee Question 3 will generate the same outcomes, but if people are going to compare Massachusetts with California, these are important numbers to consider.
The Polls: Question 3 Is A Tight Race
This summer, Question 3 looked like it had an advantage. An August UMass Amherst/WCVB poll of 800 registered voters found 51% supported the measure, 32% opposed, and 17% were undecided.
However, September polling tells a different story:
- A MassINC Polling Group survey for CommonWealth Beacon conducted September 14-22 found 43% Yes, 36% No, and roughly 20% undecided among likely voters.
- A University of New Hampshire poll conducted September 17-21 found 41% Yes, and 39% No, with 19% undecided.
The difference between August and September may be a warning sign for the Yes on 3 campaign. Roughly a fifth of voters were still undecided as the polls tightened.
MassINC pollsters also noted a longstanding difficulty for ballot initiatives: voters who remain uncertain about a complicated proposal late in the campaign often default to the status quo.
