GREENFIELD — Residents had an early opportunity on Friday to get up to speed on the nine ballot questions that they’ll be asked to decide on when they go to the polls during November’s general election.
Around 30 residents were in attendance at The LAVA Center, with discussion led by members of the grassroots organization Franklin County Continuing the Political Revolution (FCCPR). Representatives of the organization said that while they are a progressive advocacy group, they were there to inform the voters of what a “yes” or “no” vote means for each question, not to sway their thinking.
“We’re not here to tell you what to think about this,” said Doug Selwyn, a member of FCCPR’s Coordinating Committee. “Some of these [questions] are pretty straightforward, some of these are a little complicated. The intention here is not to sell anybody on anything, but to share our understanding of what these ballot questions are, so that we can come away one way or another more informed.”
Members of the progressive organization took turns reading the ballot questions before detailing what a “yes” or “no” vote will mean.
No more than on Questions 8 and 9 was that distinction between votes needed. Question 8 asks voters if they will repeal the law that permits the retail sale of recreational marijuana to adults, while Question 9 asks voters if they will uphold legislation passed in 2024, “An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws.”
A “no” vote on Question 8 means that recreational marijuana would continue to be legal to purchase, while a “yes” vote would be in support of repealing the law, approved in a ballot question in 2016, that made it legal in the state. A “yes” vote would leave only medicinal marijuana available for purchase.
On the flip side, a “yes” vote on Question 9 would be to uphold the firearms law in 2024 that prohibited and restricted the sale of select firearms. A “no” vote would repeal this law.
“A ‘yes’ vote upholds the law that we have now, which is more restrictive in terms of what kinds of firearms people can have,” FCCPR Coordinating Committee member David Greenberg said regarding Question 9. “A ‘no’ vote would repeal it. It’s a little confusing the way it’s worded.”
No question was too small for the members of FCCPR, though Selwyn reminded those in attendance that they weren’t discussing the further action that would need to be taken after the election, just discussing what the ballot questions are and what they mean.
This reminder was given during discussion on Question 2. This question, if passed, would allow nearly 5,000 public defenders with the Committee for Public Counsel Services to participate in collective bargaining practices. Numerous attendees asked the members of FCCPR if this was a legally binding ballot question and expressed frustration that sometimes the will of the voters isn’t recognized at the State House, referencing the legislative audit that voters passed overwhelmingly in 2024. Almost two years since voters demanded the audit, Massachusetts has not seen the request come to fruition.
Selwyn said that while this is a real frustration people have with the state government, and only time will tell if public defenders will be able to participate in the collective bargaining, this wasn’t a question that the group would be able to answer.
“I think that is a special case,” Ferd Wulkan, of FCCPR’s Coordinating Committee, said regarding the state audit. “It’s not the typical situation; I think we don’t have a long history of ballot questions passing and then being ignored or undermined. Not saying it couldn’t happen.”
Similar thoughts and concerns were shared when discussing Question 1, which would make documents in the governor’s office and state Legislature subject to public records law. A sense of surprise was felt in the room when residents learned that Massachusetts is the only state in the nation where the Legislature and governor’s office claim exemption from public records law.
“We can’t go there tonight,” Selwyn said in response to a question about how and if Question 1 would be implemented if it passes in November. “What we can do is understand what it is we’d be voting for.”
The longest discussion of the night was inspired by Question 3, which Selwyn called “a doozy.” Question 3 would eliminate the current primary system in Massachusetts, which is based off of political parties, and instead move to what is called a “jungle primary,” which is already used in states like California and Washington. Alaska has a similar system, though it has the top four candidates move on to the general election.
If Question 3 were to pass, all candidates that receive the necessary signatures to appear on the ballot would appear on one primary ballot, and the top two vote-getters would move on to the general election. This means that it could be two Republicans or two Democrats in the general election.
A “yes” vote would support this new system while a “no” vote would keep the status quo.
Will Goldsmith, a member of the Coalition for a Healthy Democracy, the main proponent of this ballot question, said the idea came to be after seeing how few people want to participate in the two-party system, referencing the fact that more than half of the registered voters in Massachusetts are unenrolled.
“In 2024, our turnout … for the state primaries was 17%, and that’s of registered voters, not of residents,” Goldsmith said. “So, that’s one of six registered voters actually showing up to participate. Which means now, we have a really high level of incumbency. If you win one election, it’s really easy to keep winning that election on money and name brand, over and over and over again.”
The two main political parties both oppose this measure, along with Progressive Massachusetts and the Massachusetts chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. Supporting the ballot question are current U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss and U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton who is running for Senate, among others.
Part of Goldsmith’s argument on Friday was that holding a primary where all candidates are listed on the ballot would provide more options for voters who feel burnt out from the two-party system, and provide the chance for members of smaller political parties to get elected (one of which is the Forward Party, which supports this ballot measure).
“We … see decreasing levels of party enrollment, weirdly enough,” Goldsmith said. “With the two-party system, people are actually going away from it. When you look at places like California, their party enrollment is actually going up with a different system, because if you have more choices, you might actually align yourself with one of them.”
Greenberg said his problem with this ballot measure comes from some political parties relying on a lot of corporate money and others not accepting any. By having two opposite ends of the spectrum on the same primary ballot, he argued it could allow those who have spent the most money to buy the election.
“If Citizens United didn’t happen, and there wasn’t all this corporate and big money in politics, it might be more reasonable,” Greenberg said. “The way things are now, I don’t see it making sense.”
Voters have a little more than two months to research and educate themselves on the ballot questions, as these questions will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot. A full list of the ballot questions can be found at ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_2026_ballot_measures.
