The Cambridge Day crib sheet for the Massachusetts ballot questions

The breakdown

Virtually all other government entities — including municipal offices, public school districts, and many offices in the state’s executive branch — are already subject to the public records law, which requires officials to release documents and correspondence in response to requests. The law has some exemptions built in to shield sensitive information like personally identifying details, materials related to developing policy positions, and contract deliberations.

The proposal builds on years of debate over transparency on Beacon Hill. Democratic legislative leaders routinely announce plans to take up major bills, or significantly amended measures, with a day’s notice or less. They often make the most crucial decisions in private meetings, allowing the public only to glimpse votes and perfunctory remarks on matters whose fates have already been sealed behind closed doors.

Diana DiZoglio, a former lawmaker herself, was elected auditor in 2022 and has led a push to force more public scrutiny of the Legislature. Last election cycle, DiZoglio proposed — and 72 percent of voters approved — a ballot question explicitly authorizing her office to audit the Legislature, but no audit has taken place because lawmakers continue to resist a probe, arguing that it would be unconstitutional.

Led by DiZoglio, transparency advocates pitched the public records law expansion as a way to counter Beacon Hill’s secrecy and top-down style of policymaking. Opponents of the ballot measure argue that this transparency reform blurs the constitutional separation of powers and should be made through the Legislature.

Massachusetts is the only state in the nation where the governor’s office, Legislature, and judiciary are all free from public records law requirements.

The breakdown

Staff attorneys and other workers at Massachusetts’s public defender agency — CPCS — do not have the right to unionize under the state’s public employee collective bargaining law. That stands in contrast to employees at about 180 other state agencies, covering groups like public educators, Department of Transportation workers, and state Lottery employees, who have the right to collectively bargain their employment terms.

The staffing challenges of CPCS employees were thrust onto the public stage in 2025 when the agency scrambled to cover the workload of bar advocates who engaged in a work stoppage to protest their pay rates. CPCS staff does not have the capacity to handle the bulk of indigent defense cases. More than 1,500 criminal charges were dropped during the work stoppage.

The Legislature responded to the bar advocate work stoppage by increasing District Court rates for private lawyers to $75 an hour this spring, which was followed by another bump to $85 in August.

The budget for CPCS as an agency has increased incrementally over the years, until this year when lawmakers appropriated $40 million for CPCS to hire 320 additional public defenders over two years. The fiscal year 2027 budget included a $12 million boost over the previous year’s budget.

But those increases still fall short of the need and do not address work conditions, ballot measure proponents argue. At a special legislative hearing on ballot initiatives in March, they noted that the staff is still overwhelmed by the caseload. During the same hearing, CPCS’s chief counsel said the agency will stay neutral on the question.

The breakdown

This November, voters will have a chance to decide if eligible Massachusetts residents should be allowed to register to vote on Election Day. This question also applies to registered voters who need to update their address — and therefore the district in which they vote — on Election Day.

Under current law, any changes to voter registration must happen at least 10 days before an election. That means anyone who is not registered or who has not updated their registration to accurately reflect their current address by October 24 cannot legally vote in the November 3 election.

To register on Election Day, Massachusetts residents would need to show proof of residency, such as a driver’s license or residential lease, and sign an oath that they are eligible.

Twenty-four states and Washington, DC, allow some form of same-day registration, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Studies show it increases voter turnout, especially among younger voters. But opponents have raised concerns about the additional administrative responsibilities placed on poll workers.

The breakdown

This question seeks to make a technical change to a law passed by voters in 1986, which could have a big impact: amending how the annual limit on state tax revenues is calculated, a system often referred to as Chapter 62F.

The cap is currently calculated by taking the prior year’s cap and increasing it by the same rate as the statewide growth in wages and salaries. Under the ballot question, the cap would instead be calculated by taking the prior year’s total state tax revenue and adjusting it for the statewide growth in wages and salaries.

That would make it much more common for Massachusetts to owe more money back to the taxpayers at the end of the fiscal year because total revenues are usually less than the cap each year. Calculating the cap off of a lower baseline would make it easier to trigger a refund.

Think of it this way: Let’s hypothetically say the existing law allows state government to collect no more than $50 billion in state tax revenue in fiscal year 2026, and the state actually collects $45 billion in taxes, so it does not owe any money back.

In the meantime, statewide wages and salaries increase by 2 percent, so the cap for fiscal year 2027 in this example is calculated by taking last year’s cap — $50 billion — and adding 2 percent, which is $51 billion.

If the ballot question were in effect, it would look much different. All of the inputs stay the same: The cap is still $50 billion in fiscal year 2026, and the state still collects $45 billion, and statewide wages and salaries still grow by 2 percent.

But the cap for fiscal year 2027 is instead calculated by taking the actual revenue total — $45 billion — and increasing it by the growth in wages and salaries, or 2 percent. $45 billion plus 2 percent becomes $45.9 billion, creating a significantly lower cap for fiscal year 2027 than current law would.

The ballot question would also count surtax revenue, which is currently exempt from the calculations, toward allowable tax collections.

The breakdown

This proposed ballot question would create a dedicated funding source — up to $100 million annually from the state’s existing sales tax on sporting goods, supporters estimate — for land conservation across Massachusetts. It would also establish a 15-member board comprising five state officials and 10 members of the public that would allocate the money for various projects, including protecting drinking water, preserving state forests, and building new nature trails.

As of 2021, Massachusetts ranked last in the country in state parks funding per capita despite now having the nation's fastest-growing outdoor recreation economy. Meanwhile, the state ranks 42^nd when it comes to nature access for people of color, with 79 percent of communities of color and 69 percent of low-income people in Massachusetts living in nature-deprived areas.

The Legislature ultimately has control over how the money gets spent. So even if the measure passes and the Nature for All fund is created, there is no guarantee that all the revenue would go to conservation projects. That’s because state lawmakers could siphon some of the sporting goods sales tax money for initiatives other than conservation. They could also reduce conservation spending in other parts of the budget to compensate for the creation of the new fund.

The "Yes on 6" coalition is supported by more than 100 organizations and also won the endorsement of Gov. Maura Healey, who has been actively campaigning in support of the ballot question. The campaign is financed in part by one of the largest donations this cycle from a single individual, who contributed $800,000 last year.

Although there is no formal opposition campaign, some lawmakers expressed concern in a March hearing that using a ballot initiative to earmark tax revenue undermines their ability to allocate funding when the state budget is already strained. Other states, like Virginia, Georgia, and Texas, use sporting goods sales tax money for conservation and recreation. Texas has had its fund since 1993, and Georgia created one in 2018 after 83 percent of voters approved the measure.

The breakdown

Massachusetts’s housing market is infamously tight and cripplingly expensive. To meet pent-up demand and population growth, the state estimates about 222,000 units have to be built by 2035. But where, and for whom? This ballot measure is taking aim at a pillar of local control: that cities and towns generally have the power to set their zoning standards and minimum lot requirements. This has led to a patchwork of zoning regulations across the state. Some municipalities require a single-family home to be built on just 3,000 square feet while others require more than triple that amount. That makes some municipalities much harder to build in.

The state has taken a few swings at the issue. In 2021, Gov. Charlie Baker signed an economic development bill that included provisions creating the multi-family MBTA Communities housing law and making it easier to change local zoning by a simple majority vote of local legislative bodies.

Yet, the proportion of affordable starter homes is dwindling. According to state data, Massachusetts single-family home prices were at the national average in 1980, but since then have increased more than any other state. The median single family home price jumped 10 percent between 2023 and 2024, up to $610,000. The “Legalize Starter Homes” campaign thinks a bit over a tenth of an acre, in most cases, is plenty of room to build a small house, though opponents argue local officials — not a one-size-fits-all state law — are the best arbiters of how much housing density a community can handle.

The campaign is led by Andrew Mikula, a Pioneer Institute senior housing fellow, and supported by pro-housing organizations like Abundant Housing Massachusetts. The opposition includes groups like the Massachusetts Municipal Association, a government trade organization that wants to maintain local control, and some groups of residents across the state.

For a time, it looked like voters would have two ballot measures attempting to get a handle on the Bay State’s housing crisis. The starter home proposal aims to jumpstart production, and an analysis from the Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis estimates the change could create anywhere from 350 to 1,200 new units per year.

On the flip side, a ballot measure that was struck down by the state’s high court proposed a strict rent control cap. Both would wrench away some local control by creating new statewide rules.

The breakdown

A decade after voters approved the legalization of recreational cannabis through a 2016 ballot measure, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts is asking them to reverse course. The organization is seeking to repeal the laws governing non-medical marijuana distribution and taxation, shutting down the state’s recreational marketplace. Adults aged 21 and older would still be allowed to possess up to one ounce without criminal penalty.

The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, which is backed by the national anti-legalization organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana, and its allies say legalizing recreational marijuana has increased youth access to cannabis. That, in turn, has led to more marijuana-related traffic incidents and harms to overall public health. (Smart Approaches to Marijuana is funding a similar repeal effort in Maine.)

The main opposition group, Stop the Repeal, a coalition of marijuana industry leaders, argues that the question would dismantle an industry that has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue and created thousands of jobs, all while making the purchase of cannabis safer.

The measure, if successful, would make Massachusetts the first state in the country to dismantle its recreational cannabis market. Retail marijuana stores would either have to apply to become medical dispensaries or sell their inventory to one. The Cannabis Control Commission would remain to regulate medical marijuana sales.

The breakdown

In July 2024, Massachusetts enacted one of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

The law made a number of changes to gun regulations that were already on the books. The sweeping legislation included a crackdown on untraceable “ghost guns” and 3-D printed guns; strengthened the state's “red flag law” limiting who can obtain firearms licenses if considered a danger; expanded the definition of “assault weapons”; criminalized carrying firearms in certain public spaces; updated state registration, licensing, and possession laws; and created new policies for firearm data collection, analysis, and publication.

The repeal is backed by firearms corporation Smith & Wesson and gun rights advocates, including the Civil Rights Coalition and the Gun Owners' Action League.

Repeal supporters want to undo the 2024 gun law because they say it creates onerous new restrictions on the right to bear arms and reflects an anti-gun posture by lawmakers that infringes on residents’ reasonable desire to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Democratic state legislators, Gov. Maura Healey, and gun violence prevention advocates are defending the law as an effective and commonsense set of changes. A 2026 study published in the JAMA Health Forum looking at states like Massachusetts with red flag laws — the Bay State’s initial red flag law went into effect in 2018 — found that they were associated with reduced suicides.