Early and mail-in voting is officially underway for Massachusetts residents in the 2026 midterm elections. This year’s ballot, however, is longer than in years past.
Massachusetts voters are faced with nine ballot questions, the most in more than 20 years. The questions range from updating public records law to repealing laws regulating marijuana and firearms.
“If you go to vote forgetting about how you have to vote on nine questions, you’re going to be surprised when you walk through the door,” Bonnie Friedman said during a Belmont League of Women Voters discussion hosted Oct. 23.
Friedman led a discussion on the questions, encouraging residents to ask questions and debate. According to Friedman, the League strives to host such events to encourage voter participation and education. With the record-tying number of questions, now seemed like a perfect time.
“To educate each other, we thought it was a good time to have a discussion,” she said.
The election will be held Nov. 3. Polls will open at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. Early voting is available at Town Hall until Oct. 30.
Question 1 – Public Records
If passed, Question 1 would place the legislature and governor’s office under Massachusetts public records law. The question comes two years after voters passed a ballot question giving state Auditor Diana DiZoglio the authority to audit the legislature.
Massachusetts is the only state that exempts all three branches of state government from public records law.
A ‘yes’ vote would make “most records” held by the legislature and governor’s office subject to public records law, according to the Secretary of State’s Office. A ‘no’ vote would mean no change to the law.
Question 2 – Mass. Public Defenders Union
Question 2 asks voters to give Massachusetts public defenders the ability to organize and form a union. The Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) has about 500 attorneys who handle criminal charges and welfare cases. Under current state law, they cannot collectively organize to form a union.
Supporters of the question say CPCS attorneys and staff have pressed the legislature for years to allow them to form a union without success. If the question passes, they will have a path for unionization, but it isn’t guaranteed that they will successfully form a union.
During the forum, Belmont residents said people charged with a crime are entitled to representation — and that the attorneys representing them deserve fair treatment in the workplace. Residents also brought up recent union negotiations at hospitals in Boston.
“We’ve seen this, that we don’t have enough people serving in these roles to cover the workload. As a tool to help them negotiate for improved wages so we can have more people in these roles, I empathize with it. I’m inclined to vote yes; it gives them the opportunity, but it doesn’t mean they will,” said Kathy Keohane.
A ‘yes’ vote on Question 2 would allow CPCS employees to form a union and collectively bargain with their employer, according to the Secretary of State’s Office. A ‘no’ vote would make no change to the law.
Question 3 – All Party Primaries
Question 3 gives voters the chance to replace the state’s current primary system with an “all-party primary.” Instead of Democratic and Republican primaries, all candidates would be on the same ballot in a single primary, with the top two, regardless of party, continuing to the November election.
California, Washington and Alaska have all-party primaries.
Those in favor of the question argue it will make elections more competitive and give voters more choices on the ballot. Opponents claim it will do the opposite in practice.
With only the top two candidates making it to the general election ballot in November, the “No on 3” campaign and other statewide organizations argue third-party and independent candidates will be essentially pushed out by candidates from major parties with increased financial backing.
Belmont resident Ira Morgenstern said party primaries — pitting Democrats against Democrats and Republicans against Republicans — have given voters robust choices in the general election.
“I don’t think our two-party system has created the impetus for solving problems and for compromises that was sort of the hallmark of democracy … let’s get the strongest voices to make their appeal,” he said. “I don’t want to limit the choice; primaries limit the choice.”
Other residents agreed, saying separating the parties can lead to candidates that don’t represent the majority of voters.
“Right now primaries end up drawing extremes on both sides; [there’s] no room for moderates,” said Bonnie Friedman, a resident and a member of the League of Women Voters. The League has no position on Question 3.
A “yes” vote would eliminate party primaries in Massachusetts and replace them with a single “all-party” primary. A ‘no’ vote would make no change to the existing primary system.
Question 4 – Election Day Voter Registration
Question 4 asks voters if Massachusetts should allow same-day voter registration on Election Day. Currently, people must register to vote at least 10 days prior to the election.
If passed, the measure would go into effect in 2028.
To register, someone must show poll workers proof of residency, which could include a valid photo ID, a utility bill or bank statement, or a residential lease, among other documents. If someone comes to the polls without proof of residency, they can cast a provisional ballot, which will only be counted if the person returns later with documentation.
Belmont residents in attendance worried about the practicality of registering people on Election Day and the potential burden it could put on Town Clerks. However, Friedman also noted that the League has been a “long supporter” of same-day voter registration efforts.
“Yes, it’s a burden, but the benefit is getting people to vote,” Keohane said.
A ‘yes’ vote would allow for same-day voter registration on Election Day. A ‘no’ vote would not change existing voter registration laws.
Question 5 – Tax Rebates
Question 5 offers the option to update a tax law capping how much revenue the state can collect in a fiscal year. The law, Chapter 62F, was originally passed in 1986 and requires the state to give taxpayers rebates if tax collections exceed a threshold based on a formula tied to wage and salary growth.
Each year’s fiscal cap is calculated based on the previous year’s cap.
If passed, Question 5 would change the formula to account for revenue from the “millionaire’s tax” passed in 2022, and would eliminate certain technical rules that give officials flexibility in calculating the cap each year. Overall, the changes would impose strict limits on annual revenue growth and increase tax rebates over the next several years.
“This strikes me as a problematic constraint on government spending,” resident Tony Barnes said.
While proponents of the question say it will create stronger fiscal guardrails on Beacon Hill, opponents argue it will lead to unpredictable budgets and cuts to public services.
“If I look at this selfishly from a Belmont standpoint, our funding will go down because the state won’t have the necessary funds,” Morgenstern said.
A ‘yes’ vote would change the limit on state revenue collection, tying it to prior-year collections plus average wage and salary growth, and provide a rebate of revenue exceeding that limit, according to the Secretary of State’s Office. A ‘no’ vote would make no change to the existing law.
Question 6 – Nature Conservation Fund
If passed, Question 6 would dedicate tax revenue to a “Nature for All” fund aimed at land conservation. The question would not add additional taxes, but rather direct sales tax dollars from sporting goods and recreational vehicles to the fund.
As a ballot question, Question 6 can’t mandate that earmarked dollars actually get spent on recreation or conservation. The state Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs would manage the fund. A “Nature for All Board” appointed by the governor would set rules governing how the revenue should be spent. The board would consist of 10 members of the public and five government officials.
A ‘yes’ vote would create the “Nature for All” fund. A ‘no’ vote would make no change.
Question 7 – Single Family Zoning Laws
Question 7 asks voters to allow single-family homes statewide to be built on lots of at least 5,000 square feet — slightly less than one-eighth of an acre.
Right now, cities and towns can set their own minimum lot size requirements for single-family homes. Depending on the residential district, Belmont requires between 9,000 and 25,000 square feet, according to PH Realty Group.
If passed, the measure would apply to all municipalities and towns statewide, except Boston, which has its own zoning rules.
Though many in favor of the question say it will kickstart the building of smaller “starter homes” that may be more affordable, some residents questioned the increased push for zoning reform on a state level. With the passage of the MBTA Communities Act and the by-right approval of accessory dwelling units, Belmont residents questioned if it was the right time to pass the measure.
“We haven’t had a lot more building yet; it just feels too soon to me to pass this yet,” Friedman said.
A ‘yes’ vote would allow single-family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet or more in residential areas, subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects of those homes, according to the Secretary of State’s office. A ‘no’ vote would mean no change in the current law.
Question 8 – Repealing Marijuana Legalization
A decade after legalizing the sale of recreational marijuana, Question 8 will ask voters whether or not they want to keep the law.
The question has the potential to upend the state’s cannabis industry, which grossed $8 billion in sales in 2025. If passed, the question would still allow for the sale of medical marijuana and limited possession for recreational use and would make Massachusetts the first state to repeal marijuana legalization. It would go into effect in 2028.
Question 8 is backed by the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, a ballot initiative group that is primarily funded by the Virginia-based Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action The organization has contributed nearly $3.5 million in favor of the question.
A ‘yes’ vote would prohibit the legalization, regulation and taxation of recreational marijuana. A ‘no’ vote would keep the current law intact.
Question 9 – Firearm Law Referendum
Question 9 asks voters whether or not to repeal a 2024 gun law, which established regulations on “ghost guns,” expanded the definition of an “assault-style firearm,” mandated every Massachusetts gun owner to register their firearms through a state portal, and expanded red flag laws. The law also banned guns from polling places and made it a crime for people to carry a weapon into a government building.
The 116-page law “enhances our ability to prevent guns from falling into dangerous hands, and invests in our communities to address the root causes of violence,” Gov. Maura Healey said at the time, according to WBUR.
Question 9 is a referendum, meaning that it seeks to repeal the current law, rather than replace it with another one. If passed, Massachusetts’ assault weapons ban would stand, and the state would still require gun licenses, safety training, and allow family- or police-initiated red flag petitions.
“When I first read this, I said, ‘Why is this even here? Why are we getting rid of gun regulations?’ It just doesn’t compute,” said Diane Palmer, a resident and member of the League of Women’s Voters. The League is supportive of keeping the 2024 law.
A ‘yes’ vote would keep the 2024 law intact. A ‘no’ vote would repeal the law.