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 2
This question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would specify that employees of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) are permitted to engage in collective bargaining with their employer. It would also require CPCS, after executing a collective bargaining agreement, to request the appropriation necessary to fund such agreement from the governor.
What supporters say
“Vote ‘Yes’ on 2 because public defenders are underpaid as it relates to other states,” Tom McKeever, president of SEIU Local 888, told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “Public defenders provide legal services for people that need it the most — the underprivileged and poor, [including the] indigent population, our neighbors, constituents and residents in the commonwealth. Organizing public defenders and support staff will give predictably for the future: security through just cause, protection through grievance processes, fair compensation, safe working conditions and additional membership benefits through the union.”
McKeever continued, “[There is] no opposition to [Question 2] to speak of at this time. Our campaign received over 100,000 signatures in just over a month. SEIU Local 888 and partners National Association of Government Employees are very happy with the momentum being built as we approach Election Day on Nov. 3.”
What opponents say
There is no organized group urging a “No” vote on this question.
Opponents in general say that CPCS is an independent agency of the judicial branch and allowing it to collectively bargain could cause problems. They say that any such agreement could affect the agency’s delivery of its legal services because of questionable specifics of the agreement that might limit the agency’s ability to have flexibility in responding to varying caseloads and other conditions.
What your vote does
A “Yes” vote would allow the CPCS to form a union to collectively bargain with their employer.
A “No” vote is against allowing CPCS employees to form a union and collectively bargain with their employer.
Also up on Beacon Hill
Allow local rent control (SD 2669)
The Senate referred to the Committee on Housing a bill that would allow local cities and towns to adopt options instituting rent control. Current law prohibits the state or local communities from implementing rent control.
“I filed this legislation with Rep. Mike Connolly, D-Cambridge, to give communities the option to adopt reasonable limits on rent increases,” said Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Marlborough, the sponsor of the bill. “By exempting small property owners and recently built housing, the bill would protect tenants from steep rent hikes while allowing new housing construction to continue across Massachusetts.”
Other supporters of the proposal say this is an issue about morals and note that, morally, we need to house people. They note that people need homes, a warm place to sleep, a place to shower, a place to eat and a place to feel safe. They say the state is failing to provide that by allowing landlords to try to charge huge increases year after year and constantly evict people for nonpayment of rent.
Opponents say rent control reduces the supply of housing, which drives rents up, makes it more difficult for owners to afford rising operating and repair costs, and hurts all the tenants in the buildings who depend on the landlord to provide safe and well-maintained living spaces. They say it makes it almost impossible for landlords to remove non-complying tenants.
Require only one license plate on vehicles (SD 3760)
The Senate referred to the Committee on Transportation a bill that would require only a rear license plate be issued for every vehicle. Current law requires both front and back plates.
The bill was filed by Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, at the request of a constituent, Rich Carlson of Gloucester, under a state law that allows citizens to request their local legislator file a bill on their behalf. These bills are known as “By Request” bills and do not necessarily have the support of the legislator who filed it for the constituent.
Tarr did not respond to requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him if he supports or opposes the proposal.
“Massachusetts should return to a single rear license plate because modern enforcement tools already rely on rear plate scanning, and nearby jurisdictions like Connecticut, Rhode Island and most Canadian provinces operate safely with one plate,” Carlson said. “In Massachusetts, the second plate adds cost and environmental impact, with Massachusetts spending over $3 million annually on aluminum plates that require energy-intensive production and create unnecessary waste. A single plate also avoids vehicle design conflicts since most modern cars aren’t built to accommodate front plates without drilling or brackets. Massachusetts has successfully used a one-plate system before, and with 22 states now requiring only one plate, the arguments for keeping two plates no longer match current technology or regional practice.”
Carlson continued, “Opposition to this bill, primarily from police organizations, is based on outdated assumptions about front plate visibility, even though modern enforcement tools overwhelmingly scan rear plates, which are illuminated, unobstructed and consistently readable. Front plates are frequently blocked by grills or bumper geometry, and are nearly useless at high closing speeds, so keeping them adds cost and complexity without improving identification. Studies have shown no advantage in law enforcement of states with two plates versus states with one plate.”
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Chief Colleen Ogilvie did not respond to requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her if she supports or opposes the proposal.
Opponents say vehicles that have both front and rear license plates are more easily identifiable and improve vehicle identification, which increases public safety. They argue that the two-plate system has worked well for many years and should not be changed.
MBTA Communities Act (SD 2615)
The Senate referred to the Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government a bill that changes the current law requiring that an MBTA community “must have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of 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.”
Current law also provides that cities and towns that do not comply with the MBTA law would be ineligible for various state grants to the municipality. The amendment would strike that provision and specifically state that any MBTA community that fails to comply with this law will not lose eligibility for any state grants.
Co-sponsors of the measure, Sen. Patrick O’Connor, R-Weymouth, and Rep. Colleen Garry, D-Dracut, did not respond to requests asking them why they sponsored the bill.
Amendment supporters say the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities is not being flexible and is pulling funding from some cities and towns that are not complying. They noted this hurts cities and towns that are already struggling financially.
Amendment opponents say that current law already allows some flexibility for these adjacent communities or adjacent small towns by establishing lower capacity requirements and greater flexibility over where they site their districts. They noted that the Office of Housing and Livable Communities currently has the administrative ability to offer some flexibility to these communities. They argue that the amendment is unfair to more than 100 communities that have already done the work and complied with the law, and sends the message that deadlines don’t mean anything.