Nine questions await Massachusetts voters on Nov. 3, starting with public records
(6-minute read)
Massachusetts voters will decide nine statewide ballot questions at the Midterm election on November 3, 2026. This article opens a series that will look at each question in turn. It begins with Question 1, which asks whether the Legislature and the governor’s office should be covered by the state public records law.
How the ballot is organized
Questions 1 through 8 are laws proposed by initiative petition. Voters are asked whether they approve of each proposed law, and if a majority votes yes, the proposal becomes law. Question 9 is different. It is a referendum on an existing law, so a yes vote keeps the law in place, and a no vote repeals it.
The Secretary of the Commonwealth’s 2026 Information for Voters guide covers all nine questions, drawn from the same red booklets the Secretary mails to households across the state. For each of Questions 1 through 8, it includes the Attorney General’s summary, statements describing the effect of a yes vote and a no vote, a statement of fiscal consequences from the Secretary of Administration and Finance, arguments for and against, and majority and minority reports from a special legislative committee, and the full text of the proposed law. The Question 9 entry provides a summary of the existing law, the yes-and-no statements, the fiscal statement, arguments from each side, and the full text of the law, but not the legislative committee reports.
The questions, by topic:
Public records for the Legislature and the governor’s office
Collective bargaining rights for employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the state’s public defender agency
An all-party primary party system
Election Day voter registration
A cap on state revenue growth
A conservation fund financed by sporting goods taxes
Single-family housing and lot sizes
Repeal of recreational marijuana legalization
A referendum on the 2024 firearm law
What Question 1 would do
Question 1, “Expanding the Public Records Law,” reached the ballot because the Legislature took no vote on it before the May 6, 2026 deadline, as the ballot question itself notes. That step is part of the process for this type of initiative petition and is explained in more detail below. According to the Attorney General’s summary, the proposed law “would make most records held by the Legislature and the Office of the Governor public records under the Massachusetts Public Records Law.”
Two categories would be exempt. The first is documents related to public policy development. The second is communications between legislators and constituents that are reasonably related to a constituent’s request for assistance in obtaining government-provided benefits or services or interacting with a government agency. The full text also extends the exemption to constituent communications to a legislator’s employees, agents, and representatives, and would add the General Court and the governor’s office to the law’s definition of an agency. If approved, the law would take effect January 1, 2027.
A yes vote would make most records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office public records. A no vote would not change the law.
The Executive Office of Administration and Finance wrote that the proposed law “has no discernible material fiscal consequences for state and municipal government finances.”
Background
Today, neither the Legislature nor the governor’s office is covered by the public records law. In a 1997 case, Lambert v. Executive Director of the Judicial Nominating Council, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Legislature is not an “agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority” under the law, according to Ballotpedia. Executive agencies and municipalities, including town governments like Reading’s, must respond to records requests.
Ballotpedia reports that Massachusetts is the only state where the legislature, the judiciary, and the governor’s office are all exempt. Citing the Boston Globe, it also noted that Massachusetts and Michigan are the only two states where neither the governor’s office nor the legislature is covered.
The question follows a 2024 ballot measure, approved by voters, that authorized the state auditor to audit the Legislature. State Auditor Diana DiZoglio filed a complaint with the Supreme Judicial Court on February 10, 2026, asking the court to enforce that measure. As of August, the complaint was pending.
Path to the ballot
Question 1 is an indirect initiated statute, which means it first goes to the Legislature. The Attorney General announced on August 7, 2025, that the Coalition for Healthy Democracy had filed the petition. On December 30, 2025, the state elections division reported that there were sufficient valid signatures.
The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a hearing on March 3, 2026, and a majority voted on May 4 to recommend that the Legislature take no action. It took none before the early May deadline, so sponsors gathered a second round of signatures. On July 17, the elections division reported that there were sufficient valid signatures and that the measure was certified for the ballot.
The case in favor
The argument in the voter guide was written by DiZoglio, through the Committee for Transparency and Democracy. It says Massachusetts “deserves open government” and that “every city, town, and state agency must follow that law.” It also says the measure protects constituent privacy and that 72% of voters approved auditing the legislature in 2024.
Ballotpedia lists Gov. Maura Healey, the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, Progressive Massachusetts, Act on Mass, and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance among supporters. In the committee’s minority report, Sen. Ryan Fattman recommended adoption, writing that “transparency is not a burden; it is a core feature of good governance.”
The case against
At the time of the guide’s printing, no organized group was urging a no vote. The Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office compiled the arguments against, in part from the committee’s majority report, and the guide notes it does not reflect the office’s opinion.
That argument says the exemptions are overly broad and poorly defined. It says the policy development exemption would apply only while a policy is being developed, which it argues would chill open communication among lawmakers and raise constitutional concerns about protections for legislative speech and debate. It also says the constituent exemption is too narrow, leaving general correspondence, such as letters expressing personal political views, open to disclosure.
The majority report adds that the exemption would not cover constituents seeking services from hospitals or nonprofits, and argues that the Legislature’s hearings, votes, and bills are already public. It also argues that the measure violates the separation of powers because it would require the Secretary of the Commonwealth, an executive branch officer, to enforce the law against the House and the Senate. The report notes that the Attorney General’s certification does not evaluate the petition’s constitutionality, and that Supreme Judicial Court justices said in an April 27, 2026, advisory opinion that the petition may raise significant constitutional questions, which they reserved for another occasion.
Senate President Karen Spilka has voiced concern that constituent offices handle personal information, such as immigration or domestic abuse matters, that may not be exempt in all circumstances.
Where to find the full guide
The Information for Voters guide is available online through the Election Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s website. It is offered in English, Spanish, Traditional Chinese, Vietnamese, and Khmer, and an audio version is available. Questions can be directed to the Elections Division at 617-727-2828.
The series will continue later this week with Question 2.
