Question 3 would replace party primaries with a single all-party ballot
(6-minute read)
This series, examining the nine statewide questions on the November 3, 2026 Massachusetts ballot, continues with Question 3, which asked voters whether to eliminate separate party primaries for state elections in favor of a single primary open to candidates from every party.
What Question 3 would do
Question 3, titled “State Primary Elections,” is an initiative petition that, like the two before it in this series, went to the Legislature before reaching the ballot after lawmakers took no action by the May 6, 2026 deadline. According to the Attorney General’s summary, the 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 would vote for any candidate on the ballot.” The two candidates who received the most votes in that primary would advance to the general election, regardless of party.
The proposal would also require candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run and be listed jointly on the primary ballot, rather than in separate party primaries as they do today. It would change the legal definition of a political party to any group whose candidates for statewide office received at least 3% of the vote in the state primary, and it would allow a candidate’s party or political designation, and in some cases an official party endorsement, to appear next to their name on the ballot. If approved, the law would take effect January 1, 2028.
A yes vote would create a single, all-party primary described above. A no vote would leave the state’s current primary system unchanged. The Executive Office of Administration and Finance found the proposal has “no discernible material fiscal consequences” for state and municipal finances.
Which officials would be affected
According to Ballotpedia, the top-two primary system would apply to primaries for:
Governor’s councillor
District attorney
Clerks of state court
Register of probate
Register of deeds
County commissioner
Sheriff
County Treasurer
Governor and lieutenant governor
Attorney general
U.S. senator
U.S. representative
Secretary of the Commonwealth
State treasurer
State auditor
State senator
State representative
The presidential primary would not be affected.
How primaries work today, and elsewhere
Massachusetts has used party primaries to nominate candidates since 1911. Today’s primaries are semi-closed, meaning voters registered with a party and unenrolled voters can both take part, though a voter already enrolled in one party must switch registration at least 10 days before a primary to vote in a different party’s contest.
Question 3 would move Massachusetts toward a format sometimes called a top-two or jungle primary, in which all candidates for an office appear on one ballot and the top two vote-getters advance to November regardless of party. As of September 2025, Ballotpedia reported that Washington, California, and Nebraska used some form of a top-two primary, while Alaska uses a similar top-four primary paired with ranked-choice voting in the general election, and Louisiana uses a majority-vote system for most statewide offices. California voters adopted their system in 2010 through Proposition 14, and Washington Voters adopted theirs in 2004 through Initiative 872.
The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions, in its majority report recommending no action on the measure, pointed to research on California’s experience, saying turnout increased in that state’s primary election but fell in the general election compared to the state’s earlier partisan primary system. The report also noted that neither California’s nor Washington’s state legislatures currently include any members who are independent or from a third party, and said the petition leaves open questions about how a political party would formally endorse candidates below statewide office, since neither major party in Massachusetts currently has an established process for that below the statewide level.
Legal challenge
Democratic State Committee members Martina Jackson and Ann Roosevelt filed a lawsuit with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on March 8, 2026, arguing that the measure would burden the right to vote. The court rejected the challenge on June 22, 2026, ruling that the petition “does not significantly interfere with the constitutionally protected right to vote or the interrelated right of individuals to seek elected office.”
Path to the ballot
The Attorney General announced the petition had been filed on August 7, 2025, and cleared it for signature gathering on September 3, 2025. The Coalition for Healthy Democracy submitted sufficient valid signatures on November 19, 2025, and the state elections division certified the signatures on December 18, 205, sending the measure to the Legislature as House Bill 5003.
The Special Joint Committee on Initiatives Petitions held a hearing on the bill on March 31, 2026, and a majority voted on May 4 to recommend the Legislature take no action, which it did before the May 6 deadline. Sponsors then gathered a second round of signatures, and the Secretary of State announced on July 17 that the additional valid signatures were submitted and certified the measure for the ballot.
The case in favor
Danielle Allen, convening chair of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, wrote the argument in the voter guide. It says Massachusetts elections are often decided before most voters cast a ballot, noting that two-thirds of the Legislature currently runs unopposed, and argues that all-party primaries “will bring accountability and transparency to Massachusetts politics by making elections more competitive, forcing politicians to listen.”
Supporters listed by Ballotpedia include U.S. Reps. Jake Anchincloss and Seth Moulton, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, and several current and former mayors and state legislators from both parties. Anchincloss told Ballotpedia, “I think American Democracy is stronger when every election is competitive in November everywhere, and this does that.” Former Massachusetts Republican Party Chair Jennifer Nassour said competitive primaries are necessary so that “we don’t want one party deciding where our tax dollars go.”
The case against
The argument against, compiled by the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office from Voter Rights MA’s submission, says top-two systems in California and Washington “have favored wealthy, self-funded candidates” and have sidelined third-party, independent, and working-class candidates, along with candidates of color and women. It argues the measure would limit voter choice by allowing only two candidates, potentially from the same party, to advance to the general election.
Both major state parties oppose the measure. Massachusetts Republican Party Chair Amy Carnevale said the current primary system “is crucial to ensure that voters have an option of choosing between two alternative political philosophies at the ballot box.” State Sen. Lydia Edwards said the change “will reward the richest candidate who can buy up TV and media,” and State Rep. Andy Varges pointed to a California race in which four Democratic candidates split the vote in a district Barack Obama had won by 16 points, leaving voters to choose between two Republicans in the general election.
Where to find the full guide
The Information for the Voters guide is available online through the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Elections Division. It is offered in English, Spanish, Traditional Chinese, Vietnamese, and Khmer, and an audio version is available. Residents with questions can contact the Elections Division at 617-727-2828.
The series continues next week with Question 4.
