The future of Massachusetts’ two-party primary system hangs in the balance this November, as voters decide whether to overhaul how candidates advance to general elections.
Currently, Massachusetts holds separate Democratic and Republican primaries. Voters enrolled with a party must vote in that party’s primary, while unenrolled voters can choose either ballot. Primary winners advance to the general election, along with third-party candidates who collect enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
Question 3 would establish an all-party primary system beginning in 2028, where all candidates would be listed on the same ballot, regardless of their political party. The top two would advance to the general election.
The measure would apply to statewide offices and races for the U.S. House and Senate, but not presidential or municipal elections. It would also allow candidates to list political party endorsements on the ballot.
Supporters say proposal could make elections more competitive
The ballot question has drawn both bipartisan support and opposition. The measure was filed by the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, founded by Danielle Allen, a Democrat who ran for governor in 2022. Allen dropped out of the race early, criticizing the Democratic Party’s delegate process for limiting voters’ choices.
Supporters include former Gov. Deval Patrick, U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss, several Republican and Democratic mayors, and the NAACP New England Area Conference.
In a state where many legislative races are uncontested, supporters argue that an all-party primary system would encourage competition. According to a 2024 report from Ballotpedia, Massachusetts had the least competitive state legislative elections in the last five election cycles.
“Over half of our elections in the last ten years have had only one choice on the ballot,” said Jesse Littlewood, campaign manager for Yes on 3. “What that does is it makes it harder to make sure that elected officials are listening to our voices because if politicians never face rivals, they never have the incentive to come and listen to us.”
In an overwhelmingly blue state like Massachusetts, some of the most consequential contests take place during party primaries, when turnout is lower than the general election. Supporters say Question 3 ensures the two leading candidates are on the November ballot, potentially giving more voters a voice in deciding who gets elected.
Opponents warn of unintended consequences
Both the Massachusetts Democratic Party and the Massachusetts Republican Party oppose the ballot question. They argue that an all-party primary would undermine political parties’ ability to select their own nominees and would often lead to two Democratic candidates competing against each other in the general election, potentially limiting voters’ choices.
Opponents also warn that the system could produce crowded primary fields and exacerbate the influence of money in politics. They point to California’s all-party gubernatorial primary as an example of the challenges that can arise when numerous candidates compete for a limited number of spots on the general-election ballot.
“When you start with the importance of money, with the ability for people and PACs to come in and change an election, because they give money to people they want to be elected, and therefore candidates will owe them, that is undemocratic,” said Ann Roose, a member of the Democratic State Committee.
Roose and Martina Jackson, both members of the Massachusetts Democratic Party leadership, filed a lawsuit with the state Supreme Judicial Court challenging the ballot measure. They argued the proposal interferes with voting rights and could prevent third-party candidates from securing a spot on the general election ballot.
“If another party, let’s say the Green Party, wanted to be on the ballot, if they meet the signature requirement that everybody needs to meet and the membership requirement, they can appear in the general election, and it gives people an option,”Jackson said. “It seems to me when you close that option, that really is closing off an important factor in our participatory democracy.”
The Supreme Judicial Court rejected the challenge, finding the measure doesn’t violate people’s right to vote.
Research points to trade-offs
A report from the Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis finds that an all-party primary would reshape elections in Massachusetts. Researchers believe that more voters would have a say since general elections typically draw higher turnout than primaries.
But the Center also found that the system would likely create a large, high-stakes primary in addition to a competitive general election, potentially increasing the role of money in political campaigns.
Researchers also say there is limited evidence that an all-party primary system reduces political polarization and suggested that the change would likely lead to only a modest increase in primary-election turnout.
(Copyright (c) 2026 Sunbeam Television. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
