As the November election approaches with nine questions on the ballot, a new nonpartisan Tufts analysis joined the guides helping voters decipher the decisions before them.
The Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis released a voter guide to analyze the nine ballot questions – a tie with the state’s 1994 record – that qualified to go before voters this coming election, joining the Secretary of State’s information booklet that just landed in mailboxes across the state.
Question 1 would nix the Legislature and the Governor’s office’s exemption from public records laws, though its impact would be restricted by “explicit exemptions for certain types of records as well as constitutional questions about the independence of the Legislature,” Tufts researchers said.
Among the analysis findings, researchers note Massachusetts is only one of two states that broadly exempt the Legislature and Governor’s office, and the question would “modestly improve” people’s ability to obtain financial and administrative materials like settlement agreements, but not constituent, lobbyist or policy-making communications.
Of Question 2, allowing the several hundred state-employed Committee for Public Counsel Services public defenders to unionize, researchers explained it would likely lead to the defenders’ “improved pay and treatment” but “could complicate the state’s ability to flexibly serve low-income clients and potentially increase reliance on private-sector public defender” with budget pressure.
The guide notes several states allow state-employed public defenders to unionize, and Massachusetts has allowed other state workers to unionize via a similar path, though it includes a “multi-part bargaining structure” that could create “delays and tension.”
Question 3 changes Massachusetts Democratic or Republican primaries to a single all-party open primary where the top two vote-getters move to the general election, “curbing the traditional role of political parties” and allowing the two most popular candidates to meet during the general election when “turnout and interest are peaking,” the guide states. It would not apply to presidential campaigns or municipal elections.
Two states use this system, Tufts researchers say, and “limited evidence suggests this approach may modestly reduce polarization and slightly increase primary election turnout—though it also seems to attract more money into political races,” noting that whether it would increase competitive races is “unclear.”
Question 4 would allow voters to register on election day for nearly all elections starting in 2028 instead of the current 10 days in advance, following the model of nearly half of states. Researchers noted that “overall impact is likely to be small” as nearly all likely voters are automatically registered in Massachusetts.
Question 5 would alter a tax refund law called Chapter 62F – which has only been triggered during surpluses twice since 1986 – linking refunds to annual revenue growth, “sending large checks to taxpayers when tax receipts are strong but also sometimes when they’re not,” the guide states.
It would trigger “2-4 times as many refunds and returning 2-7 times as much money to taxpayers,” returning $200-$250 per year and cutting state revenue equal to a “income tax cut of roughly 0.15-0.2%,” researchers state. The structure “provides little protection against refunds when tax receipts are at historically low levels.”
Question 6 would create a new earmark for conservation and recreation through a small portion of sales tax receipts – an estimated “relatively small amount of roughly $65 million” – to a spending account, still allowed to be diverted if lawmakers choose, the guide states.
Question 7, the “Starter Home” initiative, overrides local zoning restrictions with the goal of increasing home construction, automatically allowing single-family homes where there is necessary space and resources.
Researchers estimated the question would generate a “plausible range” of 350 to 1,200 homes per year, “a real but modest impact” of 15% increase in single family home building. The question would change zoning status of about 200,000 parcels, the guide states.
Question 8 would undo the 2016 legalization of recreational marijuana sale and use, dismantling the state’s marijuana industry and creating fines for small scale possession, though not jail time.
The industry created billions in sales and “limited but valuable amount of tax revenue,” researchers said. The guide notes the “increasingly well-established” research into risks like addiction and psychosis, adding that the question would likely reduce use but increase black market activity.
Question 9, to repeal a 2024 comprehensive gun safety law, would maintain the tighter rules with a yes vote and restoring older regulations with a no vote. The law includes provisions to track “ghost guns;” allow positions like school administrators, healthcare providers and police to seek “red flag” orders; and require gun owners to register all firearms with the state.
Researchers note its “too soon to know the full benefits and drawbacks of the 2024 law” and that even with a no vote, Massachusetts has “among the strictest” gun laws in the country.
Recent endorsements
Several organizations have recently added to ballot questions endorsements.
For Question 3, supporters boasted new state legislators, the Hampden County Sheriff, the Western Mass Building Trades Union, several mayors and more in a Tuesday release.
Question 4 supporters also released statements heralding the campaign from MassVote, Common Cause Massachusetts, Massachusetts Voter Table, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts also on Tuesday.
On Question 6, environmental activists U.S. EPA Administrator and White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy, author and activist Bill McKibben, and former Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs Bob Durand released their support Tuesday.
The Boston Teachers Union also stated their support for gun safety measures on Question 9 Tuesday, the SEIU State Council endorsed a no vote to stop the repeal of recreational marijuana on Question 8, and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance continued their support for Question 5.
