On Nov. 3, or prior to that for voters who take advantage of early voting between Oct. 17 and Oct. 30, all voters will have the opportunity to vote on nine ballot questions that will become law if approved by the majority of voters.
To get on the ballot, the groups backing each ballot question were required to collect and submit at least 74,574 signatures last fall. The Legislature had until May 5, 2026, to act on the proposed law. The Legislature did not act on any of the proposals by its May 5 deadline. At which point, supporters were required to collect another 12,429 signatures by July 1, 2026, to get their question on the ballot. All nine groups gathered sufficient signatures to get their question on the 2026 ballot.
Secretary of State William Galvin has issued an 88-page book via the U.S. mail and online with details about each question. If you would rather not read the entire 88-page book, Beacon Hill Roll Call will be presenting a report on each ballot question over the next several weeks prior to the election.
Question 1
This question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would make most records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office public records and available to the public under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Exemptions include communications between legislators and their constituents, if they include a request by the constituent for assistance in obtaining government-provided benefits or services.
What supporters say
“I believe voters should vote “Yes” on Question 1 because Massachusetts residents deserve the same meaningful access to government records from their elected leaders that they expect from other public agencies,” State Auditor Diana DiZoglio told Beacon Hill Roll Call. DiZoglio is also the chair of the Committee for Transparent Democracy, the group that is sponsoring the question. “As state auditor, I have seen firsthand how difficult it can be to obtain information from the Legislature, and voters should not have to rely on closed-door processes when public business is being conducted.”
DiZoglio continued, “Opponents have raised concerns about costs and the burden of disclosure, but those arguments should not obscure the basic principle that government records created in service to the public should be accessible to the public. Our campaign is continuing to organize and educate voters because this is ultimately about who government works for — the people — and whether Massachusetts will finally bring its most powerful elected institutions into a stronger culture of transparency and accountability.”
What opponents say
There is no organized group urging a “No” vote on this question.
Opponents in general say this proposed law violates the separation of powers mandated by the Massachusetts Constitution by requiring the secretary of state (an executive branch official) to enforce this law against the legislative branch (the House and Senate). They say this change would take a constitutional amendment to implement, not a state law.
They argue that the legislative process is already publicly accessible at the State House and online. They say advance notice is given of upcoming public hearings that are broadcast live online and then archived for viewing after the livestream is over. They say that public and advocacy groups are allowed and encouraged to testify in person, remotely online and in writing.
What your vote does
A “Yes” vote is in favor of making most records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office public records and available to the public under the Massachusetts Public Records Law.
A “No” vote is against making most records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office public records and available to the public under the Massachusetts Public Records Law.
Also up on Beacon Hill
$1.8 million for fire safety
Gov. Maura Healey announced that her administration is making $1.8 million in grants available to local fire departments to support fire and life safety efforts that protect Massachusetts’ most vulnerable residents.
The annual Student Awareness of Fire Education (SAFE) and Senior SAFE grants are used to fund trained firefighter-educators who deliver age-appropriate safety education to school-age children and older adults, as well as the associated costs of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, teaching equipment and other expenses.
“Consistent, statewide fire and life safety education has helped make Massachusetts one of the most fire-safe states in the nation,” said State Fire Marshal Jon Davine. “The SAFE and Senior SAFE grants are a vital part of that educational strategy. I strongly encourage every local fire department to apply.”
Supporters say these grants contributed to the steepest decline in child fire deaths in Massachusetts history. In 1994, there were more than two dozen child fire fatalities. The SAFE grants were launched the following year and child fire deaths never again reached even half that number, declining at a rate about 30% steeper than fire deaths overall.
Fire departments in every city, town and fire district are eligible but must meet certain requirements. Applications must be submitted by 5 p.m. on Sept. 29. For more information, visit mass.gov/info-details/student-awareness-of-fire-education-safe.
MBTA housing
The state’s Supreme Judicial Court upheld the decision of a lower court, which ruled that the town of Marshfield’s claim that the current law, known as the MBTA Communities Act, is an unfunded state mandate, is invalid.
Current law requires that an MBTA community must have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as a right and meets other criteria including minimum gross density of 15 units per acre; and a location not more than half a mile from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station. No age restrictions can be applied and the district must be suitable for families with children. Cities or towns that do not comply with the MBTA law are in danger of losing various state grants.
Supporters of the act said it is intended to spur development of housing in more than 170 cities and towns that host or are adjacent to MBTA service by requiring those communities to adopt at least one zone where multi-family housing is allowed by right.
Marshfield had sued the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, arguing that adopting the zoning mandated by the law forced it to absorb significant “incurred costs and expenses in evaluating and drafting proposed zoning bylaws and presenting them to Town Meeting.” A Superior Court judge concluded in June that the possible costs Marshfield did or could face were “indirect,” and that the law is therefore not an unfunded mandate. The SJC upheld the lower court’s ruling.
“Massachusetts has a housing crisis, and it’s impacting everything from our ability to grow our workforce to the everyday cost of living,” said Attorney General Andrea Campbell. “Today’s decision by the SJC rejects Marshfield’s claim that the MBTA Communities Law is an unfunded mandate and reaffirms that the law is constitutional and compliance is mandatory.”